The Supreme Court has reiterated that the second marriage of a Hindu man after conversion to Islam without having his first marriage dissolved under the law would be invalid. “The second marriage would be void in terms of the provisions of Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the apostate husband would be guilty of the offence of bigamy under section 494 IPC”, the court added. The ruling was handed down by a division bench comprising Mr. Justice S Saghir Ahmed and Mr. Justice R P Sethi in separate but concurring judgement while dismissing a review petition and writ petition filed by various persons and Jamait-i-Ulema-Hind. It was contended in these petitions that the judgement in Sarala Mudgal case was contrary to the fundamental rights as enshrined in Articles 20, 21, 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The court noted that the petitioners had not made out any case within the meaning of Article 137 of the constitution read with order XL of the Supreme Court rules and order XLVII Rule 1 of the criminal procedure court for reviewing the judgement in Sarala Mudgal case. The petition is misconceived and bereft of any substance. The judges said that they were not impressed by the arguments that the law declared in Sarala Mudgal case could not be applied to persons who had solemnized marriages in violation of the mandate of law prior to the date of judgement. “This court had not laid down any new law but only interpreted the existing law which was in force. It is settled principle that the interpretation of provision of law relates back to the date of the law itself and cannot be prospective from the date of the judgement because concededly the court does not legislate but only gives an interpretation to an existing law”, the judges observed. “The judgement had only interpreted the existing law after taking into consideration various aspects argued at length before the bench which pronounced the judgement. The review petition alleging violation of article 20 (1) is without any substance and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone”, the judges held. Even under the Muslim Law, the judges pointed out, plurality of marriages is not unconditionally conferred upon the husbands it would therefore be doing injustice to Islamic law to urge that the convert is entitled to practice bigamy notwithstanding the continuance of his marriage under the law to which he belonged before conversion. The court said the violators of law, who have contracted the second marriage, cannot be permitted to urge that such marriage should not be made subject matter of prosecution under the general penal law prevalent in the country. “The court said Islam, which is a pious progressive and respected religion with rational outlook, cannot be given a narrow concept and as has been tried to be done by the alleged violators of the law”, the court noted. |