Sarla Mudgal v Union of India
Rule established
A Hindu husband cannot convert to Islam solely to contract a second marriage; such a marriage is void under S.494 IPC and Hindu Marriage Act; reiterated the need for a Uniform Civil Code under Article 44.
Facts
- Hindu men were converting to Islam for the sole purpose of contracting a second marriage while the first Hindu marriage subsisted. Their Hindu wives challenged this practice as fraudulent and bigamous.
Issue
- Whether a Hindu husband who converts to Islam and contracts a second marriage during the subsistence of his first Hindu marriage commits bigamy under S.494 IPC.
Held
- The Supreme Court held that conversion to Islam for the sole purpose of marrying again is an abuse. The first marriage under Hindu law continues to subsist; the conversion does not dissolve it. Therefore, the second marriage is void and the husband is liable for bigamy under S.494 IPC. The Court strongly recommended enactment of a Uniform Civil Code under Article 44.
Ratio Decidendi
(1) Conversion to another religion does not automatically dissolve a Hindu marriage. (2) A second marriage during subsistence of the first is bigamy under S.494 IPC regardless of conversion. (3) Article 44 (Uniform Civil Code) is a constitutional imperative that the State must pursue.
How to use it in an exam
- Landmark authority on conversion-based bigamy; always pair with Lily Thomas v Union of India (2000) which affirms this ratio
- Key for Uniform Civil Code questions under Article 44
- Distinguish from cases where conversion is genuine and not solely for the purpose of a second marriage
Source
Source: (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 635
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.
Cited in study notes
Family Law I (Hindu Law)Monogamy and PolygamyLeading case on conversion-based bigamy and UCC recommendation