Scribd
Upload
526 views3 pages

Sarla Mudgal, & Others. v. Union of India

The 1995 Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India Supreme Court case prohibited the practice of a Hindu man solemnizing a second marriage by converting to Islam without first dissolving his first marriage under Hindu law. The Court ruled the man's first marriage was still valid, and his second marriage after converting violated Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment highlighted the need for a uniform civil code and was considered an important precedent, though it did not directly implement a uniform code.

Uploaded by

mihir khanna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
526 views3 pages

Sarla Mudgal, & Others. v. Union of India

The 1995 Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India Supreme Court case prohibited the practice of a Hindu man solemnizing a second marriage by converting to Islam without first dissolving his first marriage under Hindu law. The Court ruled the man's first marriage was still valid, and his second marriage after converting violated Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment highlighted the need for a uniform civil code and was considered an important precedent, though it did not directly implement a uniform code.

Uploaded by

mihir khanna
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Sarla Mudgal, & others. v.

Union of India

Sarla Mudgal v.Union Of India[1] is a Supreme Court 2 Judgement


of India case. Its judgement in 1995 laid down the princi-
ples against the practice of solemnizing second marriage The Court held that the first marriage would have to be
by conversion to Islam, with first marriage not being dis- dissolved under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The
solved. The verdict discusses issue of bigamy, the conflict man’s first marriage would therefore, still be valid and
between the personal laws existing on matters of marriage under Hindu law, his second marriage, solemnized after
and invokes article 44 of Indian Constitution. It is con- his conversion, would be illegal under Section 494 of the
sidered a landmark decision that highlighted the need for Indian Penal Code, 1860.
a uniform civil code.[2]
The Sarla Mudgal judgment has issued no directions for
implementations of Uniform Civil Code, though Justice
Kuldeep Singh has requested the government to look at
the Article 44 of the Constitution.[4]
1 Facts

In the Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, there were two 3 Significance


main petitioners. The first was Kalyani, a NGO that
works with needy and distressed women, which is headed Sarla Mudgal judgment was hailed as precedent for Uni-
by Sarla Mudgal. The next petitioner was Meena Mathur, form Civil Code, and cited various cases where personal
married to Jitender Mathur, in 1988, Meena finds that Ji- laws of different religions have come in conflict. The
tender converted to Islam and solemnized second mar- second marriage of Hindu Husband was considered void
riage with Sunita Narula, also known as Fathima. Meena under Section 494 of IPC, In the judgement the judge
Mathur complains that her husband converted to Islam gets into detailed examination of the case, Justice Kuldip
only for the purposes of getting married again and cir- Singh, while delivering the judgment remarked, “When
cumvented the provisions of Section 494 of IPC.[3] more than 80% of the citizens have already been brought
In Writ Petition 424 of 1992, Geeta Rani, married to under the codified personal law there is no justification
Pradeep Kumar alleged physical and mental violence whatsoever to keep in abeyance, any more, the introduc-
by her husband. She later found out that her husband, tion of “uniform civil code” for all citizens in the territory
Pradeep, eloped and married another woman after con- of India.[5] ” There was an appeal to the government to
verting to Islam, in 1991. Sushmita Ghosh, petitioner in have a re-look at Article 44 of Indian Constitution, which
Civil Writ Petition 509 of 1992 married G. C. Ghosh ac- suggest Uniform civil code for the citizens.
cording to Hindu rituals in 1984. The husband told her It was submitted by Mr. Yusuf Muchala, senior advocate,
that she wanted a divorce and the petitioner argued that appearing for the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board
she was the legally wedded wife. The husband embraced and also by the advocate of the Jamiat Ulema Hind that
Islam and wanted to get married to Vinita Gupta. The the Sarla Mudgal Judgment would render the status of
petitioner has prayed to not let her husband to enter a the second wife as that of a concubine and children born
marriage with Vinita Gupta. of that wedlock as illegitimate to this the Honb’le judges
In the case Section 494 of IPC, article 14, 15 20 were have held this issue is not involved in the present case.
discussed in details. The court discussed in detail these What we are considering is the effect of second marriage
two issues: via the first marriage which subsists in spite of conversion
of the husband to Islam, for the limited purpose of ascer-
taining his criminal liability under Section 17 of the H.M.
1. Whether a Hindu husband married under Hindu law Act read with Section 494 IPC. As and when this ques-
is allowed to embrace Islam and then second an- tion is raised, it would be open to the parties to agitate
other? the legitimacy of such wife and children and their rights
in appropriate proceedings or forum.[6] ’
The judgment was heavily criticized for remarks made on
2. Whether the husband can be charged under 494 of minorities made as part of the judgment, and invocation
IPC? of Uniform Civil Code.

1
2 6 EXTERNAL LINKS

4 See also
• Supreme Court of India

5 References
[1] AIR 1995 SC 1531

[2] Vrinda Narain (2001). Gender and Community: Muslim


Women’s Rights in India. University of Toronto Press. p.
62. ISBN 978-0-8020-4869-1.

[3] “Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code”.

[4] “Article 44 of Indian Constitution”.

[5] “Supreme Courts Advocacy of a Uniform Civil Code”.

[6] “Supreme Court on feigned conversion to Islam and sec-


ond marriage-II”.

6 External links
• Indian Kanoon website
3

7 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses


7.1 Text
• Sarla Mudgal, & others. v. Union of India Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarla_Mudgal%2C_%26_others._v._Union_of_India?
oldid=732174850 Contributors: Utcursch, Yobot, , Cluelesssoul, Hidden-Pockets, OmniBot and Anonymous: 1

7.2 Images
• File:Emblem_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_India.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Emblem_of_
the_Supreme_Court_of_India.svg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/courtnews/2009_issue_
1.pdf Original artist: Supreme Court of India Website
• File:Wiki_letter_w.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6c/Wiki_letter_w.svg License: Cc-by-sa-3.0 Contributors:
? Original artist: ?

7.3 Content license


• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy