Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India

Hello readers.

In this article you will find a note on law study related question. This question can be asked for minimum 5 marks in your LLB exams.

Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India

This is one of the landmark judgments on Hindu law. It is unique case itself. It was decided by Supreme Court of India on 10th May 1995 and is cited as "AIR 1995 SC 1531". 

The judgment in his case is one landmark decisions which highlighted the need of uniform civil code in India. The main holding of the judgment is "the second marriage was considered void." Also as per this judgement "Religion is faith and cannot be exploited as a commodity."

Facts of the case

A) Petitioners - 1st petitioner was Kalyani, NGO headed by Sarla Mudgal. This NGO was working for needy and distressed women. Next petitioner was victim named Meena Mathur married to Jitender Mathur, in 1988.

B) After few days of marriage Meena Mathur finds that her husband Jitender Mathur converted to Islam and solemnized second marriage with Sunita Narula alias Fathima. 

C) Meena complains that her husband Jitender Mathur converted to Islam only for the purpose of getting married again and circumvented the provisions of Section 494 of Indian Penal Code.

D) The case discussed Article 14, 15 and 20 of Constitution of India and Section 494 of Indian Penal Code in detail.

E) Questions discussed : 

i) Whether a Hindu husband married under Hindu law is allowed to embrace Islam and then second another?

ii) Whether the husband cab be charged under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code?

Main points of Judgement

The main points of judgement are as follows:

The court held that

A) First marriage would have to be dissolved under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

B) the man's First marriage would therefore still be valid and under Hindu law , his second marriage, solemnized after his conversion, would be illegal under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

C) The justice Kuldeep Singh has requested the government to look at the article 44 of constitution of India.

Significance of judgement

A. This judgement was hailed as precedent for uniform civil code.

B. It cited various judgments where personal laws of different religions come in conflict.

C. Second marriage of Hindu husband was considered void under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code.

D. Justice Kuldeep Singh remarked that, "when more than 80% of citizens have already been bought under the codified personal law there is no justification whatsoever to keep in abeyance, any more, the introduction of uniform civil code for all citizens in the territory of India."

E. There was an appeal to Government to have re look at article 44 of Indian constitution which suggest uniform civil code for all citizens.

F) The issue of second marriage by conversion of husband to Islam for limited purpose of ascertaining his criminal liability under Section 17 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 read with Section 494 of Indian Penal Code and second marriage is void.