Sarla Mudgal V. Union Of India (1995):

There are several instances where people convert their religion to take advantage of one religion over the other. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India is one of those cases where one of the spouses converted to the Muslim religion to tie the knot with another woman without dissolving their first marriage which was solemnized under Hindu marriage laws. It was hailed as a precedent for Uniform Civil Code which states that all sections of societies irrespective of their religion shall be treated equally according to national civil code which shall be applicable to all citizens.

Its judgment in 1995 laid down the principles against the practice of solemnizing second marriage by conversion to Islam, with first marriage not being dissolved. The verdict discusses issue of bigamy, the conflict between the personal laws existing on matters of marriage. Hindu marriages are governed by the Hindu Personal law which applies to Hindus, Jain, Sikhs, and Buddhists. Hindu Personal laws are secularized and modernized by authority of parliament. On the other hand, Muslim marriages are governed under the provisions of Shariat law, 1937. Hindu marriage laws allow monogamy (only one spouse at a time) whereas Muslim individuals allow polygamy (practice of having multiple spouses at a time).

Fact Of The Case:
In this case petitioner 1 was Sarla Mudgal was the president of an NGO named Kalyani which works for welfare of women and family's needs.

Second petitioner was another woman named Meena Mathur (with two sons and a daughter), who got married to Jitender Mathur in 1978. In 1988 petitioner found that her husband Jitender Mathur changed his religion and got married to another woman named Sunita Narula alias Fatima. She got to know that conversion of her husband to Islam was only to marry Sunita Narula which is punishable under section 494 of section of IPC.

Petitioner 2 which was Sunita Narula alias Fatima had converted to Islam to marry Jitender Mathur in 1988. A child also been born out after the marriage. Both Jitender Mathur and Fatima were converted to Islam before solemnizing their marriage. She argued that her husband due to his first wife influence changed his religion again to Hinduism but she continued to be Muslim. She argued that she was not maintained by her husband and no protection under her personal laws.

Petitioner 3 was Geeta Rani who got married to Pradeep Kumar according to Hindu rites in 1988. The petitioner alleged that her husband assaulted her and in one of the assaults her husband broke her jawbone. Petitioner's Husband eloped with another woman named Deepa and married her after adopting Islam. The Petitioner also stated that the objective of conversion to Islam is to facilitate second marriage with Deepa.

Arguments of the Parties:

Petitioners:

• Marriage between petitioner and respondent should be duly performed according to the particular personal law.
• Petitioners have contended that the second marriage of their spouses is a violation of rights that are guaranteed under personal laws.
• Respondents are duly performing their marriages without dissolving their first marriage.

Respondents:

• Respondents believe the provision of one particular personal law shall apply to all personal laws.
• In other words, the provisions of Muslim personal law must apply to Hindu personal law and other religious personal laws.
• Respondent contended that according to Muslim personal law, if either of the spouses does not have the same religion (Islam), that will result in the dissolution of the marriage.

Issue Before the Court:

Religious conversion should not be used as a loophole for people to marry another woman without legally ending their previous marriage. This has led to concerns in the courts about the immoral act of abandoning one's partner and exploiting the freedom of practicing religion in a secular state. There are primarily three issues that need to be addressed in the court:

• Can a Hindu man duly perform his second marriage by converting himself to Islam without dissolving his first marriage?
• Is such a marriage a valid marriage without dissolving the first marriage under the law?
• Whether the husband who changed his religion with his convenience would be liable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Judgement:
The Court held that the first marriage would have to be dissolved under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(which states that marriage can be dissolved under the provision of the Divorce act. A marriage can also be dissolved on the death of either of the spouses. According to Hindu Marriage Act, a marriage cannot be dissolved except on the grounds of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1954. 

As a result, a second marriage is illegal in the eyes of law. The second marriage of an apostate husband is against natural justice. It is arbitrary to allow individuals to solemnize their marriage without dissolving their prior marriage after conversion to Islam. It is a clear way out to bypass the provision of section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Supreme Court of India emphasizes the enforcement and implementation of the Uniform Civil Code in India to regulate matters related to marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance, custody of the child, and other matters related to matrimonial disputes under a uniform law applicable to all religious communities uniformly. The objective of the Uniform Civil Code is to govern all the religious communities in India uniformly. The man's first marriage would therefore, still be valid and under Hindu law, his second marriage, solemnized after his conversion, would be illegal under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The second marriage of Hindu Husband was considered void under Section 494 of IPC, in the judgement the judge gets into detailed examination of the case, Justice Kuldip Singh, while delivering the judgment remarked, "When over 80% of the people already follow established personal laws, it's logical to have a single set of rules that applies to all citizens uniformly. It promotes fairness and equality, ensuring that everyone in the country is subject to the same civil laws regardless of their religion or background" .There was an appeal to the government to have a re-look at Article 44 of Indian Constitution, which suggest Uniform civil code for the citizens.