LILY THOMAS V. UNION OF INDIA (2000)
( BIGAMY CASE)
Title Of Case :-
Lily Thomas vs. Union Of India & Ors
Court :-
Supreme
Court Of India
Citation :-
AIR 2000 SC 1650
Date Decided
:- 10.07.2013
Bench :-
Saiyed Saghir Ahmad, R.P Sethi, JJ
Appellant :-
Lily Thomas
Respondent :-
Union of India & Ors.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE :-
To start with , it is important to mention that the
Appellant Lily Thomas was a petitioner in various landmark cases, the instant case
relates to Bigamy, in which to avoid prosecution Mr. Ghosh converted his
religion to Islam.
The landmark judgement was given in this case. This
case was landmark because SC considered second marriage without dissolution of his
first marriage. But later it was declared void unless and until first marriage
was dissolved. According to the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, if husband done Bigamy
he would be liable under section 494 and 495 of Indian Penal Code. Many
religions personal law didn’t allow Bigamy so that married men will not take
benefit of marry again without getting their first marriage dissolved.
To decide the status of bigamous marriage by
converting to Islam, SC has taken several petition such as – Sunita &
Fatima v. UOI , Sarla mudgal & Ors v. UOI .
FACTS :-
Smt. Sushmita Ghosh, wife of Shri G.C Ghosh had
filed a writ petition in the concerned court, stated that the marriage between
them was solemnized on 10.05.1984 in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 with all religious rites and rituals. On 1 April,1992Mr. Ghosh told his
wife that she should accept his divorce by mutual consent since he had already
planned to marry a lady called Vanita Gupta in week of July 1992 and he also
converted himself to Islam. Vanita Gupta is a divorce lady with two children.
Shri G.C Ghosh also having a certificate issued by the office of the Maulana Qari
Mohammad Idris,and the Shahi qazi certifying that he had accepted Islam with
his free will &consent. That certificate was produced by him before the
concerned court . Mr. G.C Ghosh also insisted the petitioner to divorce
otherwise she will have to Accept his second wife. Sushmita Ghosh with his
family made several attempts to convince the respondent not to end their
marriage , but all in vain.
Here, according to petitioner , Mr. Ghosh has no
faith in Islam , he converted to Islam just for the sake of re- marriage.
Neither he changed his name not follows any obligatory Muslimprocedures.
LEGAL ISSUE RAISED :-
1- Whether
it is desirable to have a uniform civil code for all citizens?
2- Whether
a Hindu husband gets converted to ‘Muslim’ faith with no actual belief and just
for the sake of second marriage?
3- Whether
the respondent (husband) would be liable under section 494 of IPC?
RATIO DECIDENDI :-
Regarding question (1), uniform civil code is
necessary to effect an integration of India. It will bring all communities into
a common platform. At present each communities is governed by their personal
laws which doesn’t form the essence of any religion.
In view of question (2) , it was clearly contented
in the appellant’s petition that respondent only converted his religion to
solemnize a second marriage , neither he had faith nor belief in religion. If
there is any freedom then it cannot be used as a garb for evading other laws.
A Bigamous marriage is prohibited under Hindu
Marriage Act and considered as an offence under section 17 of the act, and is
void. Any marriage despite his conversion to another religion solemnized by the
husband during the existence of first marriage, would be an offence under
section 17 of Hindu Marriage Act,1955 and with respect of question (3) , that
person could be liable to be prosecuted under section 494 of IPC.
ARGUMENTS ( FROM THE SIDE OF PETITION)
1- Women
freedom is facing such Bigamous marriage and it is violation of Article 21(
right to life and liberty)
2- Lily
Thomas and many other muslim women pleaded before the Supreme Court and High
Court to make male polygamy unconstitutional in Muslim law.
3- Urged
before the court to make uniform civil code applicable so that no personal
religious law make fundamental rights violation.
4- To
reframe Muslim personal law with the change in time and make unconstitutional
the practise of polygamy.
ARGUMENTS ( FROM THE SIDE OF RESPONDENT)
The respondents in all of the preceding petition assert
a common contention that he has converted to Islam, and after conversion they
can have four wives regardless of whether the first wife is Hindu or not .
Thus, they are not subject to the applicability of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ,
section 11 of which makes Bigamous marriage void and also section 17 of which
made them guilty of Bigamy under 494 of IPC.
JUDGEMENT:-
The bench of Justice Saghir Ahmed and Justice
R.Sethi on 5 may 2000, gave the judgement that the marriage performed under
Hindu Marriage Act is not dissolved by a change of religion. The court held,“ to
leavethe religion doesn’t dissolve the matrimonial bond or civil obligation, it
can be a ground for filing divorce under section 13 and judicial separation
under section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act”.
The Hindu law doesn’t support polygamy it only
support ‘monogamy’. Therefore, second marriage is void under section 11 and 17
and is also an offence under section 494 & 495 of the IPC.
The court held that if Hindu husband performs second
marriage after conversion then such conversion is fradulent and marriage is
declared as void. If we consider uniform civil code, it was observed that applying
an uniform civil code would do injustice with the personal laws like- Hindu
Marriage Act, Sharia etc.
CONCLUSION :-
The case of Lily Thomas vs. Union of India is
landmark case because it helped to avoid the selfish motive of Bigamy . Bigamy
is the offence of marrying another women while the first marriage still
persists and such Bigamous relations are unconstitutional or illegal and the
second marriage is void from the very beginning ( void ab initio).
For a long period, married men who was Hindu whose
personal law didn’t allow Bigamy have done an immoral practise of converting to
Islam for the second Bigamous marriage under the assumption that he will
lawfully do a second marriage without dissolving the first. Section 494 of IPC
was an effort to advance the interest of justice. Until uniform civil code is
enacted for all the citizens of the India, there will be always a loophole in
the system because different Religion have different beliefs, and these
differences raise a conflicts.
REFERENCES :-
· Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, Acts of Parliament,1955 (India)
· https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80351/
· http://lawtimesjournal.in/lily-thomas-vs-union-of-india-ors/
0 Comments