Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment relating to the validity of second marriage by a Hindu husband after converting to Islam. 
• This bench delivering the judgment comprised of Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice RM Sahai.     

Facts 

• There were several petitioners involved in this case having a similar grievance. 
• Petitioner 1 was the President of “Kalyani” which is a registered society working for welfare of needy families and women in distress. 
• Petitioner 2 was Meena Mathur who was married to Jitendra Mathur and has three children. 
  • Meena Mathur discovered in early 1988 that her husband, Jitender Mathur, had married Sunita Narula (alias Fathima) after both converted to Islam. 
  • Meena claims the conversion was solely to circumvent Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which prohibits bigamy under Hindu law. 
  • Jitender asserts that Islam permits four wives, even though his first wife remains Hindu. 
• Another Petitioner in this case was Sunita Narula who was the second wife of Jitender Narula. 
  • Sunita claims she converted to Islam and married Jitender, with whom she has a son. 
  • She alleges that Jitender, under pressure from his first wife, reverted to Hinduism and agreed to maintain his first wife and children, leaving Sunita without maintenance or protection under either Hindu or Muslim personal laws. 
• Another Petitioner is Geeta Rani who married Pradeep Kumar according to Hindu rites. 
  • Geeta alleges that her husband maltreated her, breaking her jawbone during one incident. 
  • In December 1991, she learned that Pradeep Kumar ran away with a woman named Deepa, converted to Islam, and married her. 
  • Geeta claims the conversion was a means to facilitate the second marriage. 
  • Geeta claims the conversion was a means to facilitate the second marriage. 
• Further another Petitioner Sushmita Ghosh, was married to G.C. Ghosh according to Hindu rites.  
  • In April 1992, her husband informed her that he no longer wished to live with her and sought mutual consent for a divorce. 
  • Her husband later revealed that he had converted to Islam and intended to marry Vinita Gupta, presenting a certificate of conversion dated June 17, 1992. 
  • Sushmita filed the petition seeking to restrain her husband from marrying Vinita Gupta. 
• Thus, the matter was before the Supreme Court for decision. 

Issues Involved  

• Whether a Hindu husband, married under Hindu law, by embracing Islam, can solemnize second marriage? 
• Whether such a marriage without having the first marriage dissolved under law, would be a valid marriage qua the first wife who continue to be Hindu? 
• Whether the apostate husband would be guilty of the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)? 

Observation  

• The Court further made the following observations with regard to validity of second marriage after conversion: 
  • The Court held that conversion to another religion by one or the other spouse does not result in dissolution of marriage. 
  • It was observed that a second marriage by an apostate under the shelter of conversion to Islam would nevertheless be a marriage in violation of the provisions of the Act by which he would be continuing to be governed so far as his first marriage under the Act is concerned despite his conversion to Islam. 
  • Thus, between the apostate and his Hindu wife the second marriage is in violation of provisions of the Act and would be non est.  
  • The Court observed that the marriage solemnized by a Hindu after converting to Islam may not be a void marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but the fact remains that such marriage would be in violation of the Act which strictly professes monogamy. 
  • The second marriage by a convert would be in violation of Section 494 of IPC and any act in violation of mandatory provisions of law is per se void. 
  • The real reason for voidness of second marriage is subsistence of first marriage which is not dissolved even by conversion of the husband. 
  • The second marriage of a Hindu husband after embracing Islam being violative of justice, equity and good conscience would be void on that ground also and attract the provisions of Section 494, IPC. 
• With regards to conviction under Section 494 of IPC the Court held that: 
  • All the four ingredients necessary for conviction under Section 494 of IPC are present in this case. 
  • The husband has a wife living and he marries again. 
  • Such marriage of a Hindu husband after his conversion to Islam is a void marriage in terms of Section 494 of IPC. 
• The Court made the following observations on uniform civil code: 
  • The Court cited the case of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) wherein the Court highlighted the importance of Article 44 of Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) which said that the State shall endeavor to secure uniform civil code throughout the country. 
  • A common Civil Code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to laws which have conflicting ideologies. 
  •  It is the State which is charged with the duty of securing a uniform civil code for the citizens of the country and, unquestionably; it has the legislative competence to do so. 
  • There is no justification whatsoever in delaying indefinitely the introduction of a uniform personal law in the country. 
• Thus, following conclusions were made by the Court: 
  • The second marriage of a Hindu- husband after conversion to Islam, without having his first marriage dissolved under law, would be invalid. 
  • The second marriage would be void in terms of the provisions of Section 494 IPC and the apostate-husband would be guilty of the offence under Section 494 IPC.

Conclusion

• This is a landmark judgment that talks about the validity of second marriage by a Hindu husband after converting to Islam. 
• This a very important case that also sheds light on the importance of Article 44 of COI which provides for uniform civil code.

[Original Judgment]