Introduction

The case is related to bigamy and conversion to another religion to solemnize second marriage.

Facts

• Sushmita Ghosh filed a petition before the Supreme Court mentioning about her marriage with Mr. G C Ghosh as per Hindu rituals in1984.
• She further stated that her husband said that she should agree to give him divorce by mutual consent.
• And since Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not allow bigamy, he converted to Islam to re-marry a woman named Ms. Vinita Gupta.
  • He also produced a Certificate issued by office of the Shahi Qazi certifying he had embraced Islam.
• During the period of 2002 and past several years, it became increasingly common among Hindu males who were unable to secure a divorce from their first wives to convert to the Muslim religion specifically for marriage purposes.
  • This practice was consistently adopted by those husbands who erred in embracing Islam for their second marriage.
• However, they subsequently reverted to their original religion under their original name and religious affiliation to maintain their rights in properties, continue their services, and conduct all other business.

Issues Involved

• Whether a non-Muslim gets converted to the ‘Muslim’ faith with no actual change or belief and merely with a view to avoid an earlier marriage or to enter a second marriage, whether the marriage entered by him after such conversion would be void?
• Whether the Respondent would be liable for bigamy under Section 494 of IPC?
• Whether it was desirable to have a Uniform Civil Code?

Observation

• The Court said that if a Hindu man converts to another religion just to marry again without facing legal consequences, it is not an honest conversion for faith.
• The Court emphasized that changing religion doesn't automatically end a marriage. If a husband converts to Islam while still married, he could face legal consequences under 494 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• Unlike some countries, in India, there's no Uniform Civil Code (UCC) governing marriages. Instead, people follow their own personal laws.
  • However, the Court clarified that if someone misuses their personal law to do something wrong, like marrying again without proper grounds, that is punishable.
• While considering the question of UCC the court said that in a diverse country like India, where people follow different religions and beliefs, the framers of the Constitution faced the challenge of bringing together individuals from various faiths, castes, genders, and linguistic backgrounds.
  • The directive principles of the Constitution recognize and respect this diversity, striving to promote unity among people of different faiths.
  • While a uniform law is desirable, enacting it all at once could potentially harm the nation's unity.
  • It would be impractical and incorrect to assume that all laws must apply uniformly to everyone immediately.
  • Instead, laws should evolve over time, addressing specific problems gradually through the legal process.

Conclusion

• In this case, the Court held in favour of wife and made it illegal to convert to Islam just to marry someone else while still being married to the first wife.

Note

• Section 494 of IPC: Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife -
  • According to section 494 of Indian penal code, whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. It’s a non-cognizable bailable offence.
• Section 11 of HMA: Void Marriages -
  • It says any marriage solemnised after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto [against the other party], be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in Clauses- (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5.
• Section 17 of the HMA -
  • Any marriage between two Hindus solemnized after the commencement of this Act is void if at the date of such marriage either party had a husband or wife living and the provisions of sections 494 and 495 of the IPC, shall apply accordingly.