This case is considered to be a noteworthy case as well as a landmark judgement due to the Supreme Court of India's ruling which makes a marriage to be considered void should a man get into a second marriage without legally ending the first marriage (while exceptions are given, the exceptions are only applicable in some .

The Supreme Court of India held that should a man convert to Islam and then marries for the second time saying to be following Islamic practices, that marriage will also be considered void. The first marriage should be legally over in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act[2] for the second marriage to be considered as valid. Should the man fail to do so, then he shall be held liable under Sections 494 of the Indian Penal Code[3] and 495 of the Indian Penal Code[4] for the offence of bigamy.

This decision has been made in order to prevent men from taking advantage of the concept of religious conversion in order to get into multiple marriages at the same time without legally ending the previous one. The court further clarified that converting to Islam does not automatically release the husband from his duties towards his first wife and any family resulting from that union, nor does it permit the husband to enter into another marriage without legally ending the first one. The judgment prior regarding the same has been regarded as crucial in order to address the issue caused by men who exploit religious conversion in order to engage in bigamous marriages.

The Indian Penal Code in section 494 defines bigamy as the act of marrying someone while still married to another person. Such bigamous relationships are not only illegal but also has the effects of voiding the second marriage from the very beginning. Most religions while having their own personal laws dealing with such cases, mostly prohibits acts like bigamy or polygamy. However, it has been noted that there is a section of married males present who have been attempting to use religion conversion to Islam as if a loop hole in order to marry multiple people without legally dissolving their previous marriages.

Lily Thomas, Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India & Ors.[1]
2000(2)ALD(CRI)686
In The Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India, Delhi
Coram:
R. P. Sethi
S. S. Ahmad

Petitioner: Lily Thomas, Etc. Etc.
Respondent: Union Of India & Ors.
Date Of Judgement: May 05, 2000


Brief Facts Of The Case
In this case, it has been observed that a writ petition and a review petition has been filed by Lily Thomas and Smt. Sarla Mudgal separately but the judgement was finalized together.

This case had been based on balancing justice and rights of the citizens of India by involving Article 20 of the Constitution of India[5], Article 21 of the Constitution of India[6], Article 25 of the Constitution of India[7] and Article 26 of the Constitution of India[8] and more. There were multiple issues brought up, for e.g. implementing uniform civil code, which while seeming to be beneficial for this case's solution causes a problem, which would violate the Article 25 of the Constitution of India should it be enforced.

Here, Smt. Sushmita Ghosh (hereinafter referred as 'Petitioner'), the first wife of Shri G. Y. Ghosh (hereinafter referred as 'Respondent no. 3') filed a writ petition with the help of Advocate Lily Thomas and Sarla Mudgal in the Supreme Court of India. In her petition, she has stated several points which not just points but also proves to her husband being married to another woman named Vanita Ghosh nee Gupta resident of D-152, Preet Vihar, Delhi, who is a divorcee with two children. After changing their religion to Islam to do so. Later submitting proof for her husband and his second wife having a child together.

Smt. Sushmita Ghosh also presented proof that her husband merely changed his religion to Islam for the purpose of marriage (which is to be noted is strictly forbidden under the Hindu Laws) and hold not only no belief in it, but has not changed his documentation to use his new name and religion. On top of that, he does not even practice the religion.

Smt. Sushmita Ghose has also submitted a certificate issued by the office of Maulana Qari Mohammad Idris, Shahi Qazi dated 17th June, 1992 certifying Shri G.Y. Ghosh converting to Islam and getting his new name of Mohammad Carim Gazi and his second wife doing the same despite getting a new name known as Henna Begum.

Shri G. Y. Ghosh and Vanita Ghosh have yet again not used their new names on papers for their child's birth certificate, their visa for Bangladesh, their electoral card along with many more places.

It is to be noted that on 1st April of 1992, Shri G. Y. Ghosh told Smt. Sushmita Ghosh to take a mutually consented divorce with him for her own interest as he has fixed his marriage with Miss Vanita Gupta in the second week of July.

Shri G. Y. Ghosh did not agree to the attempts to change his mind by Smt. Sushmita Ghosh, her father and her aunt.

Smt. Sushmita Ghosh ultimately prayed for a declaring polygamy marriage between Hindus and Non-Hindus after conversion to Islam illegal and void, for stopping her husband's second marriage with anyone, for helping with matters of this kind.

The writ petition has been noted to have been filed by the (at time sitting) summer vacation judge Mr. Justice M. N. Venkatachaliah in the year 1992. He passed the order to take the writ petition on board and issued notice with the council of Mr. Mahajan who is a learned senior counsel for petitioner.

Issues Raised Before The Court

• Whether the marriage entered into by respondent no. 3 after conversion would be void based on where the conversion took place for the sole purpose of remarrying, without any real change or belief in religion and merely to avoid the first marriage or to enter into a second marriage.
• Whether second marriage by a Hindu after conversion to Islam while subsiding the first marriage be considered an offence and be punishable.
• Whether the husband (respondent no. 3) be liable under bigamy laws.
• Whether the Uniform Civil Code be there for all citizens.

RULES OF LAW

1. Article 15 (1) of the Constitution of India

   "Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. — (1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. (2) ……….. (3) ………. (4) ……… (5) …….. (6) ……."

2. Article 20 of the Constitution of India

   "Protection in respect of conviction for offences. — (1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. (3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself"

3. Article 21 of the Constitution of India

   "Protection of life and personal liberty. — No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 21A. Right to education. — The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine."

4. Article 25 of the Constitution of India

   "Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. — (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. (2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law — (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice; (b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus."

5. Article 26 of the Constitution of India

   "Freedom to manage religious affairs. — Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right — (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) to administer such property in accordance with law."

6. Section 5(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

   "Conditions for a Hindu marriage. — A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:— (i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage; (ii) ……… (iii) …….. (iv) ……. (v) ……"

7. Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

   "Judicial separation. — (1) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnised before or after the commencement of this Act, may present a petition praying for a decree for judicial separation on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 13, and in the case of a wife also on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (2) thereof, as grounds on which a petition for divorce might have been presented. (2) Where a decree for judicial separation has been passed, it shall no longer be obligatory for the petitioner to cohabit with the respondent, but the court may, on the application by petition of either party and on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition, rescind the decree if it considers it just and reasonable to do so."

8. Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

   "Void marriages. — 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."

9. Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

   Divorce. — (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party — (i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or (ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or (ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or (ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; or (iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. (iv) (v) has been

13A. Alternate relief in divorce proceedings.
In any proceeding under this Act, on a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, except in so far as the petition is founded on the grounds mentioned in clauses (ii), (vi) and (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 13, the court may, if it considers it just so to do having regard to the circumstances of the case, pass instead a decree for judicial separation. 1. Subs. by Act 68 of 1976, s. 7, for "bestiality" (w.e.f. 27-5-1976). 2. Ins. by s. 7, ibid. (w.e.f. 27-5-2976). 3. Ins. by s. 8, ibid. (w.e.f. 27-5-1976).

13B. Divorce by mutual consent
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976), on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.

(2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree."

10. Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955[14]
Punishment of bigamy:

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 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), shall apply accordingly."

11. Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code
"Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife:
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."

12. Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code
"Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted.—

Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section having concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact of the former marriage, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

13. Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code[15]
Adultery:
Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor."


14. Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure[16]
"Prosecution for offences against marriage
1. No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence:
   Provided that:
   
   1. where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf;
   2. where such person is the husband and he is serving in any of the Armed Forces of the Union under conditions which are certified by his Commanding Officer as precluding him from obtaining leave of absence to enable him to make a complaint in person, some other person authorised by the husband in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) may make a complaint on his behalf;
   3. where the person aggrieved by an offence punishable under section 494 or section 495 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is the wife, complaint may be made on her behalf by her father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter or by her father's or mother's brother or sister, or, with the leave of the Court, by any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption.
       
2. For the purposes of sub-section (1), no person other than the husband of the woman shall be deemed to be aggrieved by any offence punishable under section 497 or section 498 of the said Code:
   Provided that in the absence of the husband, some person who had care of the woman on his behalf at the time when such offence was committed may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his behalf.
    
3. When in any case falling under clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the complaint is sought to be made on behalf of a person under the age of eighteen years or of a lunatic by a person who has not been appointed or declared by a competent authority to be the guardian of the person of the minor or lunatic, and the Court is satisfied that there is a guardian so appointed or declared, the Court shall, before granting the application for leave, cause notice to be given to such guardian and give him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
    
4. The authorisation referred to in clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), shall be in writing, shall be signed or otherwise attested by the husband, shall contain a statement to the effect that he has been informed of the allegations upon which the complaint is to be founded, shall be countersigned by his Commanding Officer, and shall be accompanied by a certificate signed by that Officer to the effect that leave of absence for the purpose of making a complaint in person cannot for the time being be granted to the husband.
    
5. Any document purporting to be such an authorisation and complying with the provisions of sub-section (4), and any document purporting to be a certificate required by that sub-section shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to be genuine and shall be received in evidence.
    
6. No Court shall take cognizance of an offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where such offence consists of sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife being under eighteen years of age, if more than one year has elapsed from the date of the commission of the offence.
    
7. The provisions of this section apply to the abetment of, or attempt to commit, an offence as they apply to the offence.


198A. Prosecution of offences under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.—
No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a police report of facts which constitute such offence or upon a complaint made by the person aggrieved by the offence or by her father, mother, brother, sister or by her father's or mother's brother or sister or, with the leave of the Court, by any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption.

198B. Cognizance of offence
No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 376B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) where the persons are in a marital relationship, except upon prima facie satisfaction of the facts which constitute the offence upon a complaint having been filed or made by the wife against the husband."

15. Section 43 of the Special Marriage Act[17]
Penalty on married person marrying again under this Act
Save as otherwise provided in Chapter III, every person who, being at the time married, procures, a marriage of himself or herself to be solemnized under this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 494 or section 495 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), as the case may be, and the marriage so solemnized shall be void."

16. Section 44 of the Special Marriage Act[18]
Punishment of bigamy.
Every person whose marriage is solemnized under this Act and who, during the lifetime of his or her wife or husband, contracts any other marriage shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 494 and section 495 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), for the offence of marrying again during the lifetime of a husband or wife, and the marriage so contracted shall be void."

17. Section 4 of Parsi Marriage & Divorce Act[19]
Remarriage when unlawful:
1. No Parsi (whether such Parsi has changed his or her religion or domicile or not) shall contract any marriage under this Act or any other law in the lifetime of his or her wife or husband, whether a Parsi or not, except after his or her lawful divorce from such wife or husband or after his or her marriage with such wife or husband has lawfully been declared null and void or dissolved, and, if the marriage was contracted with such wife or husband under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act 18654 (15 of 1865), or under this Act, except after a divorce, declaration or dissolution as aforesaid under either of the said Acts.
    
2. Every marriage contracted contrary to the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be void.


18. Section 5 of Parsi Marriage & Divorce Act[20]
Punishment of bigamy:
Every Parsi who during the lifetime of his or her wife or husband, whether a Parsi or not, contracts a marriage without having been lawfully divorced from such wife or husband, or without his or her marriage with such wife or husband having legally been declared null and void or dissolved, shall be subject to the penalties provided in sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for the offence of marrying again during the lifetime of a husband or wife."

19. Section 61 of Indian Divorce Act[21]
Bar of suit for criminal conversation:
After this Act comes into operation, no person competent to present a petition under sections 2 and 10 shall maintain a suit for criminal conversation with his wife."

Arguments Of The Parties
Arguments From The Side Of The Petitioner
The petitioner argued that there has been a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India due to violation of women's right to life and freedom dignity by the practise of religion conversion to Islam for the sake of engaging in polygamy.

To back their arguments, the petitioner cited multiple cases and the laws applied in them and argued that the respondent no. 3's reasoning for conversion to Islam does not follow the Muslim Law's requirements for he holds no belief in Islam, he does not practice Islam, he has not renounced his previous religion in his official paper works, he has continued to use his Hindu name for governmental documents despite having been granted a new name upon conversion, and much more.

The petitioner also pointed out that by not practicing Islam and gotten into a second marriage, the respondent no. 3 has disregarded both religions values and laws.

The petitioner prayed the honourable judges for the second marriage of respondent no. 3 to be considered as void under the section 11 and 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act since it violates them both, for the respondent no. 3 to be punished under the section 17 of Hindu Marriage Act, section 494 and 495 of Indian Penal Code and for justice towards the aggrieved party.

Arguments On The Side Of The Respondent
The respondent in return to the petitioners arguments counter argued by claiming to have been granted the rights to remarry and have multiple wives by converting to Islam despite his first wife still belonging to the Hindu religion and not converting with him or agreeing with his second marriage and stating to have not violated any fundamental rights since all this came under the personal laws of the religion.

The respondent argued further by stating that due to Musim laws not being completely codified, the conversion laws standing upon beliefs and traditions and that they fulfil the 2 main requirements of conversion by being of sound mind and giving consent for the conversion.

The respondent pointed out that Article 25 of the Constitution of India allows for freedom of religion and as such they are free to choose their own religion.

The respondent also argued that section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act is applicable to Hindus only and by converting to Islam, they are no longer bound by them. Further pointing out that while Hindu laws prohibit polygamy, Muslim Laws do not and as they have not committed any violations.

Judgements
The Supreme Court Of India
Order:
On 5th April 2000, the Supreme Court of India, issued an order stating that the review petition and the writ petition are to be disposed of for not having any substance and all interim orders passed during the proceedings alongside the stay of criminal cases in subordinate courts shall stand vacated with no costs.

Alongside the order came the submission of learned additional solicitor general who appeared for the respondents stating that the Government of India had no intention of taking any action in this case based on judgement alone.

It was also decided that a second marriage by a Hindu after conversion to Islam while subsiding the first marriage is considered an offence and is punishable.

Judgement:
On 5th May 2000, the Supreme Court of India, issued the judgement stating the writ petition and the review petition (W.P.(C) No. 1079/89, RP(C) No. 1310/95 IN WP(C) 509/92, WP(C) No.347/90, WP(C) No. 424/92, WP(C) No. 503/95, WP(C) No.509/92, WP(C) No. 588/95, WP(C) No.835/95) are at last to be disposed of and the interim orders passed in these petitions shall stand vacated.

Alongside, the Supreme Court of India also stated that should a person with a living spouse tries to get into a second marriage, the second marriage would be deemed invalid and void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The court emphasised that a second marriage by a Hindu while the first marriage still exists will not be considered to be legal.

Not only that but the supreme court of India also clarified that the freedom guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India should not violate similar freedoms guaranteed to others. The framework of The Constitution of India makes sure that every single individual has the fundamental right of practicing their religious beliefs and express their views in a manner that does not violate religious rights and personal freedoms of other people.

It was said that the word "Islamic" mainly means "submission to God" and "not just marriage." While permitting second marriage in India, the Muslim Laws also say that it depends on conditions like doing justice to both spouses. The sanctity and purity of marriage are always of great importance. To change one's religion just for getting into a second marriage is not in the principles of any religion.

Should a Hindu spouse lodges a complaint against their partner for getting into a second marriage while the first marriage still exists and converts to a different religion than the one, they held belief in, the offense of bigamy will be seen under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Supreme Court of India in Lily Thomas vs Union of India clarified that there has been no violation of Article 21 of The Constitution of India, which states "no person shall be deprived of their right to personal liberty except as per the established legal procedure."

While here contracting a second marriage while the first marriage still exists comes under the Indian Penal Code's Section 494, but it does not violate Article 21.

Ratio Decidendi
As per the ruling of the Supreme Court of India, to change the ones religion to Islam from Hindu for the sake of getting into a second marriage, without the first one ending legally by either of the spouses is not permitted and as such the marriage would be declared void under the ruling of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

While practicing a religion is protected by Article 25 of the Constitution of India, there is no protection when the freedom and rights of others are violated. Marriage is no joke and its sacredness should be preserved.

Anyone not part of the specific exceptions marrying for the second time without legally ending the first marriage would be eligible to be punished under the Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which considers bigamy as a crime.

A complaint filed by a Hindu spouse against their spouse in relation with bigamy will be dealt under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Supreme Court of India used the legal provisions available to ensure that the second marriage has been declared void.

Orbiter Dicta
The Supreme Court of India suggested that should a person undergo religion conversion for the mere reasoning of getting into a second marriage without legally ending the first marriage, then such conversion should also be considered as nothing more than a fraud intending to merely use the religion conversion concept as a tool for personal gain instead of anything related to the religion which in itself brings shame to the religion, since a conversion should occur due to genuine and sincere changes in one's beliefs.



Precedents Followed

Authoritative Precedents:

Since this case has been marked as not only a landmark judgement but also an original precedent, the applicability of authoritative precedents is not possible.

Persuasive Precedents:

The following cases were relied upon while reaching the judgement; while not binding, these were used to persuade the judgement in one or the other side's favor:
1. Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande vs. State of Maharashtra[22]
2. Kanwal Ram vs. H.P. Administration[23]
3. Priya Bala Ghosh vs. Suresh Chandra Ghosh[24]
4. Gopal Lal vs. State of Rajasthan[25]
Apart from the above, there were many other cases used in attempts to persuade the judgement in one or the other side's favor. Most of those cases were seen to be either not much relevant or not applicable due to one reason or the other as argued by the parties.

Original Precedents:

This judgement has created an original precedent here and is to be followed in situations where required and applicable.

Declaratory Precedents:

Due to being an original precedent, the possibility of needing any declaratory precedent is not applicable here.

Present Status Of Judgement:

According to the Supreme Court of India's ruling, the present status for Lily Thomas, etc. etc. v Union of India & Ors., 2000 case is that the verdict is till date legitimate and has not yet been overturned. This judgement has been cited in multiple cases to date, such as:
• Rajkumar Dubey vs. Union of India and Ors.[26] (15.05.2006 - MPHC)
• Megha Thakur vs. Shanker Dass and Ors.[27] (01.09.2022 - JKHC)
• Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Zaina Begum and Ors.[28] (06.12.2022 - JKHC)
• M.P. Chandrika and Ors. vs. P. Vijayi and Ors.[29] (26.07.2022 - KERHC)
• Mahendra Harilal Parekh vs. Meenaben Hirenbhai Parekh[30] (30.06.2022 - GUJHC)


Case Comments
I believe this case has taken another monumental step towards closing the loopholes that have been used in ways that are detrimental towards not just women but also humanity.

According to my understanding of this case, the decisions that took place were needed for quite some time and reparations should have been in place alongside the punishment.

The very idea of abandoning the person you vowed to spend your life with, for someone else without even legally ending the marriage is not something to even joke about, let alone to do.

The data seen prior to this judgement in regards to bigamy and abandonment with/of a spouse using religion change as the excuse is extremely shocking and heartbreaking.

The judgement has paved the way towards a reprieve available for people going through such situations which is honestly applaudable and very encouraging for future judgements.

End Notes:
1. Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224.
2. Hindu Marriage Act, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India)
3. IPC. § 494
4. IPC. § 495
5. India Const. art. 20.
6. India Const. art. 21.
7. India Const. art. 25.
8. India Const. art. 26.
9. India Const. art. 15(1).
10. Hindu Marriage Act, § 5(1) No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India)
11. Hindu Marriage Act, § 10 No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India)
12. Hindu Marriage Act, § 11 No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India)
13. Hindu Marriage Act, § 13 No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India)
14. Hindu Marriage Act, § 17 No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India)
15. IPC. § 497
16. CODE CRIM. PROC. § 198
17. Special Marriage Act, § 43, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1954
18. Special Marriage Act, § 44, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1954
19. Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, § 4, No. 3, Acts of Parliament, 1936
20. Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, § 5, No. 3, Acts of Parliament, 1936
21. Indian Divorce Act, § 61, No. 4, Acts of Parliament, 1869
22. Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 1564
23. Kanwal Ram v. H.P. Administration, (1966) 1 SCR 539
24. Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh, AIR 1971 SC 1153
25. Gopal Lal v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1976 SC 713
26. Rajkumar Dubey Vs. Union of India and Ors., MANU/MP/1868/2006
27. Megha Thakur Vs. Shanker Dass and Ors., MANU/JK/1198/2022
28. Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Zaina Begum and Ors., MANU/JK/1337/2022
29. M.P. Chandrika and Ors. Vs. P. Vijayi and Ors., MANU/KE/2288/2022
30. Mahendra Harilal Parekh Vs. Meenaben Hirenbhai Parekh, MANU/GJ/1668/2022