The case involved Sarla Mudgal, a Hindu woman, who challenged the validity of her husband’s second marriage after he converted to Islam. This situation raised important questions about the legal status of marriages under personal law, particularly regarding bigamy and the rights of women in such scenarios.
IssuesThe Supreme Court made several key observations regarding the intersection of personal laws and constitutional principles. The judges noted that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, clearly prohibits bigamy, indicating that a Hindu man's conversion to another religion does not absolve him of the legal obligations arising from his first marriage.
The judges emphasized that allowing polygamous marriages undermines the dignity and status of women, often leading to exploitation and social injustice. They highlighted the need for a uniform civil code, which would provide a coherent legal framework governing marriage and family matters, thereby promoting gender equality and protecting women's rights.
DecisionThe Court ruled that the second marriage of the husband was invalid under Hindu law, asserting that no individual can evade the consequences of their first marriage through religious conversion.
The Court held that a Hindu man, who converts to Islam and marries again without dissolving his first marriage under Hindu law, commits the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the IPC.
It ruled that the first marriage under Hindu law remains valid even after conversion to Islam, and marrying again without divorcing the first wife is illegal.
The judgement emphasised the need for a Uniform Civil Code as envisioned under Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, which aims to provide a uniform legal framework for all citizens, irrespective of their religion.