PRESTIGE INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND

RESEARCH

DEPARTMENT OF LAW

LIBRARY ASSIGNMENT FAMILY LAW CASE

Submitted To:- Submitted By:-

Prof. Rupali Rathore Aayush Arora
BA.LL.B 3rd sem
 Acknowledgement

In performing our assignment, I had to take the help and guideline of

some respected persons, who deserve my greatest gratitude. The
completion of this assignment gives me much Pleasure. I would like to
show our gratitude towards Prof. Rupali Rathore for giving me good
guideline for assignment throughout numerous consultations. I would
also like to expand my deepest gratitude to all those who have directly
and indirectly guided me in writing this assignment.
I would also like to express my gratitude towards the librarian of my
institution for providing me with the necessary books and materials for
the project.
Many people, especially my classmates, have made valuable comment
suggestions on this proposal which gave me an inspiration to improve
my assignment. I thank all the people for their help directly and
indirectly to complete my assignment.
 Sarla Mudgal v. Union Of India

Court-Supreme Court of India

Decided-10 May 1995
Citation AIR 1995 SC 1531
Holding-The second marriage was considered void.
Laws applied - Law of passing off under Section 494 IPC
Bench:

1. Kuldip Singh,

2. R.M Sahai

Introduction:

In the most simplest manner, this case is in regards to bigamy and if

coversion to another religion permits to commit the offence.

Facts - In the Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, there were two main
petitioners. The first was Kalyani, a NGO that works with needy and
distressed women, which is headed by Sarla Mudgal. The next petitioner
was Meena Mathur, married to Jitender Mathur, in 1988, Meena finds
that Jitender converted to Islam and solemnized second marriage with
Sunita Narula, also known as Fathima. Meena Mathur complains that
her husband converted to Islam only for the purposes of getting married
again and circumvented the provisions of Section 494 of IPC.1

1 "Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code"

In Writ Petition 424 of 1992, Geeta Rani, married to Pradeep Kumar
alleged physical and mental violence by her husband. She later found
out that her husband, Pradeep, eloped and married another woman after
converting to Islam, in 1991. Sushmita Ghosh, petitioner in Civil Writ
Petition 509 of 1992 married G. C. Ghosh according to Hindu rituals in
1984. The husband told her that she wanted a divorce and the petitioner
argued that she was the legally wedded wife. The husband embraced
Islam and wanted to get married to Vinita Gupta. The petitioner has
prayed to not let her husband to enter a marriage with Vinita Gupta.

In the case Section 494 of IPC, article 14, 15 20 were discussed in

details. The court discussed in detail these two issues:

1. Whether a Hindu husband married under Hindu law is allowed to

embrace Islam and then second another?

2. Whether the husband can be charged under 494 of IPC?

Judgement The Court held that the first marriage would have to be
dissolved under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The mans 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 Sarla Mudgal judgment has issued no directions for

implementations of Uniform Civil Code , though Justice Kuldeep Singh
has requested the government to look at the Article 44 of the
Constitution2

2 "Article 44 of Indian Constitution".

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. https://en.wikipedia.org
2. https://wrcaselaw.wordpress.com