Sarla Mudgal, & others. v. Union of India

Last updated

Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India
Emblem of the Supreme Court of India.svg
Court Supreme Court of India
Full case nameSarla Mudgal and Ors. v. Union of India
Decided10 May 1995
Citation(s)AIR 1995 SC 1531
Case opinions
Decision by Kuldip Singh

Sarla Mudgal v. Union Of India [1] is a Supreme Court of India case. Its judgement in 1995 laid down the principles against the practice of solemnizing second marriage by conversion to Islam, with first marriage not being dissolved. The verdict discusses issue of bigamy, the conflict between the personal laws existing on matters of marriage and invokes article 44 of Indian Constitution. It is considered a landmark decision that highlighted the need for a uniform civil code. [2]

Contents

Facts

In the Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, there were two main petitioners. The first was Kalyani, a NGO that works with needy and distressed women, which is headed by Sarla Mudgal. The next petitioner was Meena Mathur, married to Jitender Mathur, in 1988, Meena finds that Jitender converted to Islam and solemnized second marriage with Sunita Narula, also known as Fathima. Meena Mathur complained that her husband converted to Islam only for the purposes of getting married again and circumvented the provisions of Section 494 of IPC. [3]

In Writ Petition 424 of 1992, Geeta Rani, married to Pradeep Kumar alleged physical and mental violence by her husband. She later found out that her husband, Pradeep, eloped and married another woman after converting to Islam, in 1991. Sushmita Ghosh, petitioner in Civil Writ Petition 509 of 1992 married G. C. Ghosh according to Hindu rituals in 1984. The husband told her that she wanted a divorce and the petitioner argued that she was the legally wedded wife. The husband embraced Islam and wanted to marry Vinita Gupta. The petitioner has prayed to not let her husband to enter a marriage with Vinita Gupta.

In the case Section 494 of IPC, article 14, 15 20 were discussed in details. The court discussed in detail these two issues:

  1. Whether a Hindu husband married under Hindu law is allowed to embrace Islam and then indulge into a marriage with another women?
  2. Whether the husband can be charged under 494 of IPC?

Judgement

The Court held that the first marriage would have to be dissolved under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 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 the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Sarla Mudgal judgment has issued no directions for the implementations of Uniform Civil Code, though Justice Kuldeep Singh has requested the government to look at the Article 44 of the Constitution. [4]

Significance

Sarla Mudgal judgment was hailed as precedent for Uniform Civil Code, and cited various cases where personal laws of different religions have come in conflict. The second marriage of Hindu Husband was considered void under Section 494 of IPC, in the judgement the judge gets into detailed examination of the case, Justice Kuldip Singh, while delivering the judgment remarked, "When more than 80% of the citizens have already been brought 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. [5] " There was an appeal to the government to have a re-look at Article 44 of Indian Constitution, which suggest Uniform civil code for the citizens.

It was submitted by Mr. Yusuf Muchala, senior advocate, appearing for the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board and also by the advocate of the Jamiat Ulema Hind that the Sarla Mudgal Judgment would render the status of the second wife as that of a concubine and children born of that wedlock as illegitimate to this the Honb’le judges have held this issue is not involved in the present case. What we are considering is the effect of second marriage via the first marriage which subsists in spite of conversion of the husband to Islam, for the limited purpose of ascertaining his criminal liability under Section 17 of the H.M. Act read with Section 494 IPC. As and when this question is raised, it would be open to the parties to agitate the legitimacy of such wife and children and their rights in appropriate proceedings or forum. [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Uniform Civil Code is a proposal in India to formulate and implement personal laws of citizens which apply on all citizens equally regardless of their religion, gender and sexual orientation. Currently, personal laws of various communities are governed by their religious scriptures. Implementation of a uniform civil code across the nation is one of the contentious promises pursued by India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. Personal laws are distinguished from public law and cover marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and maintenance. While Article 25-28 of the Indian Constitution guarantees religious freedom to Indian citizens and allows religious groups to maintain their own affairs, article 44 of the constitution expects the Indian state to apply directive principles and common law for all Indian citizens while formulating national policies.

<i>Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum</i> Maintenance lawsuit in India

Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum [1985 (1) SCALE 767 = 1985 (3) SCR 844 = 1985 (2) SCC 556 = AIR 1985 SC 945], commonly referred to as the Shah Bano case, was a controversial maintenance lawsuit in India, in which the Supreme Court delivered a judgment favouring maintenance given to an aggrieved divorced Muslim woman. Then the Congress government enacted a law with its most controversial aspect being the right to maintenance for the period of iddat after the divorce, and shifting the onus of maintaining her to her relatives or the Waqf Board. It was seen as discriminatory as it denied right to basic maintenance available to Muslim women under secular law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian Penal Code</span> Penal code of Republic of India

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) is the official criminal code of India. It is a comprehensive code intended to cover all substantive aspects of criminal law. The code was drafted on the recommendations of the first Law Commission of India established in 1834 under the Charter Act of 1833 under the chairmanship of Thomas Babington Macaulay. It came into force in India during the British rule in 1862. However, it did not apply automatically in the Princely states, which had their own courts and legal systems until the 1940s. The code has since been amended several times and is now supplemented by other criminal provisions.

Section 377 of the British colonial penal code criminalized all sexual acts "against the order of nature". The law was used to prosecute people engaging in oral and anal sex along with homosexual activity. As per Supreme Court Judgement since 2018 Indian Penal Code Section 377 is used for Convictions of non consensual sexual activities among homosexuals with a minimum of ten years imprisonment extended to life imprisonment. It has been used to criminalize third gender people, such as the apwint in Myanmar. In 2018, British Prime Minister Theresa May acknowledged how the legacies of British colonial anti-sodomy laws continue to persist today in the form of discrimination, violence, and death.

Homosexuality in India has been a subject of discussion since ancient times to modern times. Hindu texts have taken positions regarding the homosexual characters and themes. Rigveda, one of the four canonical sacred texts of Hinduism says Vikriti Evam Prakriti, The ancient Indian text Kama Sutra written by Vātsyāyana dedicates a complete chapter on erotic homosexual behaviour. Historical literary evidence indicates that homosexuality has been prevalent across the Indian subcontinent throughout history.

India since its independence in 1947 became a Hindu majority state since Partition of India until 1976. Some of the secular values were enshrined in the constitution of India. India's prime minister Indira Gandhi is credited for establishing India as a full & fledged secular state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state</span>

This article summarizes the same-sex marriage laws of states in the United States. Via the case Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States legalized same-sex marriage in a decision that applies nationwide, with the exception of American Samoa and sovereign tribal nations.

The Goa Civil Code, also called the Goa Family Law, is the set of civil laws that governs the residents of the Indian state of Goa. The Goan civil code was introduced after Portuguese Goa and Damaon were elevated from being mere Portuguese colonies to the status of a Província Ultramarina. The Goan civil code is a Indianised variant of the Portuguese legal system that draws largely from the Napoleonic Code, a common legal system in a number of Continental European nations. Indian law mostly derives from English common law that was formulated and applied in British India, and remains pegged to developments in the "Charter of the British Commonwealth". With a number of amendments, following the Partition of India, Indian laws as a whole, have religion-specific civil codes that separately govern adherents of different religions; and also has caste reservations. Goa and Damaon are an exception to that rule, in that a single code governs all the native Goans and the native Damanese of Damaon, Diu & Silvassa, irrespective of affiliation to religion, ethnicity and social strata. The English translation of the civil code is available on the Government of Goa's e-Gazette dated 19/10/2018.

Modern Hindu law is one of the personal law systems of India along with similar systems for Muslims, Sikhs, Parsis, and Christians. This Hindu Personal Law or modern Hindu law is an extension of the Anglo-Hindu Law developed during the British colonial period in India, which is in turn related to the less well-defined tradition of Classical Hindu Law. The time frame of this period of Hindu law begins with the formal independence of India from Great Britain on August 14, 1947, and extends up until the present. While modern Hindu law is heralded for its inherent respect for religious doctrines, many still complain that discrimination still pervades the legal system, though efforts to modernize and increase the legal rights of the marginalized have been made.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Special Marriage Act, 1954</span> Indian Marriage Law

The Special Marriage Act, 1954 is an Act of the Parliament of India with provision for civil marriage for people of India and all Indian nationals in foreign countries, irrelevant of the religion or faith followed by either party. The Act originated from a piece of legislation proposed during the late 19th century. Marriages solemnized under Special Marriage Act are not governed by personal laws.

The Hindu Marriage Act is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted in 1955 which was passed on 18th of May. Three other important acts were also enacted as part of the Hindu Code Bills during this time: the Hindu Succession Act (1956), the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (1956), the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (1956).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Polygyny in India</span>

Polygamy, including polygyny, is outlawed in India. While it was not prohibited in Ancient India and was common among aristocrats and emperors, it is believed that it was not a major cultural practice. The lack of prohibition was in part due to the separation between land laws and religion, and partially since all of the major religions of India portrayed polygamy in a neutral light. According to some government data polygamy is decreasing day by day in India.

India does not recognise same-sex marriage or civil unions. India does not possess a unified marriage law, and as such every citizen has the right to choose which law will apply to them based on their community or religion. Although marriage is legislated at the federal level, the existence of multiple marriage laws complicates the issue. In October 2023, the Supreme Court of India declined to legalise same-sex marriage or civil unions and left the matter to Parliament or the state legislatures to decide.

The Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage in the states and most territories did not legalize same-sex marriage on Indian reservations. In the United States, Congress has legal authority over tribal reservations. Thus, unless Congress passes a law regarding same-sex marriage that is applicable to tribal governments, federally recognized American Indian tribes have the legal right to form their own marriage laws. As such, the individual laws of the various United States federally recognized Native American tribes may set limits on same-sex marriage under their jurisdictions. At least ten reservations specifically prohibit same-sex marriage and do not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions; these reservations, alongside American Samoa, remain the only parts of the United States to enforce explicit bans on same-sex couples marrying.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006</span> Indian law

The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 came into force on 1 November 2007 in India. It forbids child marriages, and protects and provides assistance to the victims of child marriages.

The dowry system in India refers to the durable goods, cash, and real or movable property that the bride's family gives to the groom, his parents and his relatives as a condition of the marriage. Dowry is called dahez in Hindi and as jahez in Urdu.

Adultery was a criminal offence under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code until it was quashed by the Supreme Court of India on 27 September 2018 as unconstitutional. The law dated from 1860. Under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which was the section dealing with adultery, a man who had consensual sexual intercourse with the wife of another man without that husband's consent or connivance could have been punished for this offence with up to five years imprisonment, a fine or both. As such, the concept of adultery targeted the act of sexual intercourse occurring between a married woman and a man other than her husband, in which case the man would be guilty whereas the wife was exempt from punishment. When a married man had sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman, no party was punishable; while if a married man had sexual intercourse with a married woman other than his wife, the married man's crime was against the husband of that married woman, not against the man's own wife towards whom he had been unfaithful. Adultery was only prosecutable upon the complaint of the aggrieved husband.

Triple talaq and talaq-e-mughallazah are now-banned means of Islamic divorce previously available to Muslims in India, especially adherents of Hanafi Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence. A Muslim man could legally divorce his wife by proclaiming three times consecutively the word talaq.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hadiya case</span> 2017–2018 Indian Supreme Court case

The Hadiya case was a 2017–2018 Indian Supreme Court case that affirmed the validity of the marriage of Hadiya and Shafin Jehan, which was challenged by Hadiya's family. Media outlets have described the underlying dispute as an allegation of "love jihad".

At the beginning of February 2022, a dispute pertaining to school uniforms was reported in the Indian state of Karnataka, when some Muslim students of a junior college who wanted to wear hijab to classes were denied entry on the grounds that it was a violation of the college's uniform policy which was also followed by the other religion students as well. Over the following weeks, the dispute spread to other schools and colleges across the state, with groups of Hindu students staging counter-protests by demanding to wear saffron scarves. On 5 February, the Karnataka government issued an order stating that uniforms must be worn compulsorily where policies exist and no exception can be made for the wearing of the hijab. Several educational institutions cited this order and denied entry to Muslim girls wearing the hijab.

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 second marriage-II".