Facts in Brief

There were four petitions in this case under Article 32 of the Constitution, which were clubbed together for hearing. The common questions for consideration before the Apex Court were:

(a) Whether a Hindu husband, married under Hindu law, by embracing Islam, could solemnise a second marriage?

(b) Whether such a marriage — without having the first marriage dissolved under law — would be a valid marriage qua the first wife, who continued to be Hindu?

(c) Whether the apostate husband would be guilty of the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?

Judgment

The Apex Court 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 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by which he would continue to be governed so far as his first marriage under the Act was concerned, despite his conversion to Islam.

The second marriage of an apostate would therefore be an illegal marriage qua his wife, who had married him under the Act and continued to be a Hindu. Between the apostate and his Hindu wife, the second marriage was in violation of the provisions of the Act, and as such would be non-est.

Further, the Court stated that it was no doubt correct that the marriage solemnised by a Hindu husband after embracing Islam may not strictly be a void marriage under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, because he was no longer a Hindu; but the fact remained that the said marriage would be in violation of the Hindu Marriage Act, which strictly professes monogamy. The real reason for the voidness of the second marriage was the subsistence of the first marriage, which was not dissolved even by the conversion of the husband. It would be giving a go-by to the substance of the matter, and acting against the spirit of the Statute, if the second marriage of the convert were held to be legal.

For the Common Man

This case categorically establishes that conversion of religion merely for the purpose of marrying again by any person is not allowed, and the second marriage will be void in such a case, while the concerned person would be liable for committing bigamy.

Further, the judgment stressed the need for acting upon Article 44 of the Constitution, which calls for a Uniform Civil Code. The Court observed:

“Successive Governments till-date have been wholly remiss in their duty of implementing the constitutional mandate under Article 44 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, request the Government of India through the Prime Minister of the country to have a fresh look at Article 44 of the Constitution of India and endeavour to secure to the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.”

However, it is sad to note that the situation remains unchanged even after a decade of this judgment.