Sarla Mudgal V. UOI summary

Smt. SARLA MUDGAL, PRESIDENT, KALYANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

1995

CASE UNDER SECTION 17 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT ON BIGAMY BY COVERSION OF RELEGION

Facts of the case : 

Petitioner 1 was the president of kalyani organisation which was a registered organisation working Interest of society especially women. Petitioner 2 was Meena Mathur who was married to Jitender Mathur under hindu laws. Jitender Mathur later, without dissolving the first marriage, solemnized second marriage with Sunita Narula after the both converted to Islam. However Jitender Mathur still remains to be a Hindu. 

Question before the court : 

Whether a hindu husband, without dissolving his first marriage, can solemnize second marriage by embracing Islam. 

JUDGEMENT : 

When the hindu marriage is solemnized, both the spouse are entitled to certain rights and status as provided under hindu personal law. If one of the spouse is allowed to dissolve the marriage by embracing to islam or some other relegion that would tantamount to destroying the rights of the other spouse. A hindu marriage can be dissolved only on the grounds and by the procedure established by hindu law and not otherwise. Therefore, marriage under the act will be valid even if the husband embraces to islam and continues to be valid unless dissolved under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act (HMA). As marriage under hindu law does not stand dissolved by changing relegion, therefore husband cannot practice polygamy even if he embraces islam as hindu marriage act strictly professes for monogamy. 

Court further observed that although second marriage could not be entitled to be strictly void marriage under the act due to its limited scope as he has now been converted to islam, but it can be termed as void marriage under section 494 of IPC due to its vast scope. Any act which is in violation of mandatory provisions of law is per se void.

Court moreover observed that in such cases, judges usually decide on principles of justice, equity and good conscience.  Hindu husband solemnizing second marriage after embracing islam would be violative of justice, equity and good conscience and thus being void attract the provisions of section 494 of IPC.

Therefore, writ petition is allowed. 




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Savitri Pandey V. Prem Chandra Pandey summary

Image
SAVITRI PANDEY Vs. PREM CHANDRA PANDEY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  2002 CASE FOR SECTION 13 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT ON THE GROUNDS OF CRUELTY AND DESERTION Facts of the case :  The appellant - wife approached the court for the dissolution of marriage under section 13 of HMA alleging cruelty and desertion against the husband.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner : Petitioner plead for the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the husband. Respondent  : Respondent - husband argued that no acts of cruelty were performed to the wife and the petitioner is trying to take advantage of her own wrong.  JUDGEMENT :  The trial court passed the decree in favour of the wife. The court observed that although nothing can establish cruelty against husband, desertion by husband provides sufficient grounds for dissolution of marriage.    High court opined that there was nothing to prove cruelty as against husband and further there w...
Read more

State of Karnataka V. UOI summary

Image
STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA November 8, 1977 CASE IN FEDERAL STRUCTURE Facts of the case : Opposition members in Karnataka assembly wrote to the Union Home Ministry alleging corruption, nepotism and favouritism by government. Thereafter, the state government under the section 3 of Commission Of Inquiry Act, 1932 establishes the inquiry commission for the same. Thereafter, central government constitutes the another one more inquiry commission under the said act for the purposes not covered under the previous inquiry commission constituted by the state government. Thus the state government filed the petition under Article 131 before the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the said commission.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner  : State Government contended that the union government does not have any right to interfere in the subject matters of the state as it is against the federal structure of the constitution. It is illeg...
Read more

Kailash Wati V. Ajodhia Parkash case summary

KAILASH WATI Vs. AJODHIA PARKASH PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT  19 NOV 1976 CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. Question before the court Whether the hindu marriage act sanctify or recognise (what may be called as) week end marriage as of a right at the unilateral desire of the wife. Facts of the case The appellant smt. Kailash Wati was married to the respondent Ajodhia Parkash in June 1964. Both of them before marriage were posted as village level teachers. Wife at her parental village of Bilga and husband at kot Ise Khan. After marriage the wife was transferred to her husband's station and they lived together in the matrimonial home for 8-9 months. Contention of the parties Husband : The allegation of the husband is that the wife has got herself transferred back to her parental village and ever since has been residing there with her parents against his wish. Therefore he filled an application for the restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT....
Read more