Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani and Ors. Appellant Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Respondent
This case involves four petitions filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. In Writ Petition no-1079/89 which included two petitioners. Petitioner one named as Sarla Mudgal President of a Non-Profit Organisation (NGO) referred to as "Kalyani" who worked for distressed women and deprived families. Petitioner 2 named as Meena Thakur married to Jitender Mathur on February 27, 1978 and had 3 children out of the wed-lock (one daughter and two sons), after sometime in early 1988, the was shocked when she got to know that her husband a had solemnized second marriage with "Sunita Narula" and also converted to Islam religion.

According to petitioner, conversion of her husband to Islam was only for the purpose of marrying Sunita and circumventing the provisions of Section 494, IPC but according to "Jitender Mathur" having embraced Islam he can have more than one wife irrespective of the fact the religion of first wife.

Second wife that is "Sunita" said that "Jitender Mathur" converted to Islam then married her and had one son from the wed lock. She further contented that because of the influence of the first wife "Jitender Mathur" gave an undertaking on April 28, 1988 that he had reverted back to Hinduism and had agreed to maintain his first wife and three children. Her grievance was that is not being maintained by her husband and protection is given to her even under personal Laws.

Petitioner in Writ petition 424 of 1992 Geeta Rani was married to "Pardeep Kumar" according to Hindu rites on 13 November 1988.It was alleged by the petitioner that her husband use to maltreat her and even once her jaw bone was broken .In December 1991, "Pardeep Kumar" ran away with "Deepa" after converting to Islam and married her and also held that the sole purpose of conversion was marriage.

At the end, Sushmita Ghosh, the petitioner in writ petition 509/1992 married G.C. Ghosh according to Hindu rites in 1984.After sometime in 1992 the respondent/her husband asked for divorce by mutual consent as he didn't want to live with her anymore. When the petitioner/wife asked him further information he revealed that he converted to Islam and married Vinita Gupta and In the writ petition, she restrained her husband from entering a second marriage.

Issues Raised:

1. Whether a Hindu husband married under Hindu law by adopting Islam can solemnize a second marriage?
2. Whether the second marriage will continue without dissolving the first marriage, where the first spouse continues to be Hindu?
3. Whether the husband would be guilty of the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)?

Arguments by Petitioner:
Petitioner's involved in this case conjointly argued that the respondent's /husband converted to Islam only to marry second wives and restrain them from Section 494 IPC or 82 of BNS.

Arguments by Respondents:
All the respondents jointly assets that they have embraced Islam, which clearly states that they can have more than one wife irrespective of the fact that their first wife continues to be Hindu , so Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 doesn't apply to them.

Judgement:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this case held that the marriage can be dissolved only on the ground mentioned under the Act in which the marriage is Solemnized, which means Until first marriage is dissolved, none of the spouse can remarry. So conversion of religion and marrying the second time would not dissolve the first marriage. Therefore, in this case, all the Ingredients of Section 494 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) were applicable.

The Hon'ble court stated that the second marriage of Hindu husband is void as first wife is alive under section Section 494 of Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Thus, the apostate husband was guilty under Section 494 IPC. At the End the court informed about the importance of Uniform Civil Code (UCC) ,which the establishment of which a single law will be followed in the entire Nation.

Comparison:
As the new laws are implemented, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is replaced by Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Section 494 IPC is replaced with Section 82 of BNS. This section simple makes bigamy an offence under the law, which is applicable to both the Hindus, as they cannot marry twice (until the first wife is living) and Muslims as cannot marry the fifth time (until the four wives are living).

Written By: Ms.Deepali, Student at Punjab University