“LILY THOMAS VS UNION OF INDIA

AIR 2000 SC 1650”

Submitted by
PURAV MEHTA
(ROLL NUMBER – 153/19)
3rd YEAR B.A. LL.B. ‘C’

Under the guidance of

DR. PUSHPINDER KAUR

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the award of the Degree of

B.A. LL.B.

1|Page
ACKNOWLEGEMENT

In the present world of competition there is a race of existence in which those who are willing
to come forward succeed. Project is like a bridge between theoretical and practical working
and with this willing I started my project. First of all, I would like to deeply appreciate and
express my sincere gratitude to my teacher, Dr. Pushpinder Kaur, for providing their invaluable
guidance, comments and suggestions throughout the course of project which also helped me in
doing a lot of research work that made me learn so many things.

I would also like to thank my parents and friends to whom I am indebted to as they helped me
a lot in finalizing the project in the limited time frame.

2|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Serial No. Topic Pages

1. Introduction 4-5

2. Facts of the Case 5-6

3. Issues Raised 6

4. Law Involved 6

5. Arguments Advanced 7-8

6. Observations of Court 9-11

7. Judgement 11

8. Latest Case Laws on Bigamy 11-14

9. NCRB data on Bigamy 14-15

10. Conclusion and Analysis 16-17

11. Bibliography 18-19

3|Page
INTRODUCTION

Bigamy in India was not perse prohibited in ancient times, but it was also not a practice among
the common populace. It was widely practised among the Hindu aristocrats and kings.
Monogamy has always been imposed on Hindu females. Manusmriti, which is one of the
sources of Hindu jurisprudence, states that when a wife is barren, diseased, or vicious, she
could be superseded, and the second marriage would be valid. However, if a Hindu man
solemnizes a second marriage when the first wife is not barren or diseased, she and her son
would always have primacy over the other wife and her son. In the British era, the Privy
Council held that a Hindu male cannot marry again without the consent of the first wife. After
independence, the personal law was codified and a blanket ban was imposed on bigamy
regardless of the religion, except for the Muslims. As of now, bigamy is criminalised under
Section 494 of IPC, which is based upon the English law of bigamy.

According to Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, “Bigamy is the offence of marrying another while the
first marriage persists and such bigamous relations are illegal and the second marriage is void
ab initio”. As per section 17 of the aforementioned act, “any marriage solemnized by the
husband during the subsistence of that marriage, despite his conversion to another religion,
would be an offence triable under section 17 of this act, read with section 494 IPC.” For a long
time, married men whose personal law prohibited bigamy have resorted to the unhealthy and
immoral practice of converting to Islam in the hope of condensing a second bigamous marriage,
assuming that such conversion would allow them to marry again without having their first
marriage dissolved.

The case dealt in the present paper represents a watershed moment in Indian legal history. The
case Lily Thomas vs. Union of India & Ors is significant because the Supreme Court ruled in
this case that second marriages without prior divorce from the first marriage are null and void,
and “men were converting to Islam to solemnize the second marriage but all of this was
considered void unless and until first marriage was dissolved according to the Hindu Marriage
Act otherwise the husband would be liable for bigamy under section 494 and 495 of Indian
Penal Code.” This was because converting to Islam would not dissolve the first marriage, and
the Husband would be accountable to all responsibilities as he would have been before
converting to Islam. Such a decision was significant because men were resorting to such acts
and tactics which have no interest in what Islam preaches but to marry and have more than one
wife.

4|Page
India is a secular country. Every citizen in India has a right to convert and follow any religion
of his/her choice. But is this right to change the religion absolute? What if the motive behind
this religious conversion is not the devotion in the other religion but something else? Would
this conversion qualify as legitimate even if it is done for selfish motives? This is the question
that the landmark judgment of Lily Thomas vs. Union of India raises.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Smt. Sushmita Ghosh, who is the wife of Shri G.C. Ghosh (Mohd. Karim Ghazi) filed a Writ
Petition in this Court stating that she was married to Shri G.C. Ghosh in accordance with the
Hindu rites on 10th May, 1984 and since then both of them were happily living at Delhi.
Around 1st April, 1992, Shri G.C. Ghosh told the petitioner that she should in her own interest
agree to her divorce by mutual consent as he had any way taken to Islam so that he may remarry
and in fact he had already fixed to marry one Miss Vanita Gupta resident of D-152 Preet Vihar,
Delhi, a divorcee with two children in the second week of July 1992. Shri G.C. Ghosh also
showed a Certificate issued by office of the Maulana Qari Mohammad Idris, Shahi Qazi dated
17th June, 1992 certifying that he had embraced Islam. The petitioner contacted her father and
aunt and told them about her husband’s conversion and intention to remarry. They all tried to
convince Shri G.C. Ghosh and talk him out of the marriage but of no avail and he insisted that
Sushmita must agree to her divorce otherwise she will have to put up with second wife. It was
stated in the petition that Shri G. C. Ghosh has converted to Islam solely for the purpose of re-
marrying and has no real faith in Islam. He does not practice the Muslim rites as prescribed nor
has he changed his name or religion and other official documents.

She ultimately prayed for the following reliefs:

(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, declare polygamy marriages by Hindus and non-
Hindus after conversion to Islam religion are illegal and void;

(b) Issue appropriate directions to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to carry out suitable amendments
in the Hindu Marriage Act so as to curtail and forbid the practice of polygamy;

(c) Issue appropriate direction to declare that where a non-Muslim male gets converted to the
“Muslim” faith without any real change of belief and merely with a view to avoid an earlier
marriage or enter into a second marriage, any marriage entered into by him after conversion
would be void;

5|Page
(d) Issue appropriate direction to Shri G.C. Ghosh restraining him from entering into any
marriage with Miss Vanita Gupta or any other woman during the subsistence of his marriage
with the petitioner; and

(e) pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether there should be Uniform Civil Code for all citizens of India?
• Whether a Hindu husband can solemnise second marriage by converting to Islam?
• Whether the husband would be liable for bigamy under section 494 of IPC?

LAW APPLIED

1. Section 494 of Indian Penal Code, 1860– Whoever, having a husband or wife living,
marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during
the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
It’s a non-cognizable bailable offence.

2. Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955– Void marriages- Any marriage solemnised
after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition
presented by either party thereto [against the other party], be so declared by a decree of
nullity if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in clauses- (i), (iv) and (v)
of section 5.

3. Section 17 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955– Punishment of bigamy- Any marriage

between two Hindus solemnized after the commencement of this Act is void if at the
date of such marriage either party had a husband or wife living; and the provisions of
sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), shall apply accordingly.

6|Page
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Contention of the Petitioner

• Petitioner’s first issue was that since marriage is a sacred institution then how resorting
to the act of religious conversion to Islamism to commit the act of bigamy as Muslim
personal law allows it, is an attempt where the women’s freedom of facing such
bigamous marriage and such betrayal is violative of Art.21(right to life and liberty) and
the principle of natural justice which has been included in the Article 21.

• Lily Thomas and many other Muslim women had pleaded before the court to declare
polygamy in Muslim Law to be unconstitutional.

• Petitioner argues that the conversion done by the respondent is not in accordance with
the Muslim Laws. For being a Muslim, one must forfeit his earlier religious faith but
here respondent can be easily seen practicing his earlier Hindu faith and continues to
be Hindu. The various documents like the name and religion on the birth certificate of
the child from his second wife, his name on the VISA application to Bangladesh, his
name in the electoral roll and his name in the account details clearly reveals he
continues to live with his Hindu name Gyan Chand Ghosh instead the name given after
conversion to Islam i.e. Mohammad Kareem Ghazi. His only motive of the conversion
was to enter a second marriage with Miss Vanita ignoring the religious faith of either
religion.

• The marriage solemnized on the date of 3rd Sept. 1992 can be termed as void under
section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section 11 of HMA talks about the void
marriages and any such marriage which violates the conditions given in clause (i), (iv)
and (v) of section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is termed as void marriage. It clearly
violates the first condition of Hindu marriage i.e. no other spouse should be living at
the time of marriage. Here, Mrs. Sushmita Ghosh is alive at the time of marriage of his
husband with Miss Vanita.

• Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 talks about the punishment of bigamy and
section 494 and 495 of IPC should be applied. For the application of these sections of
Indian Penal Code the marriage must be declared void by the laws and here it is clear
cut a void marriage under section 11 of HMA.

7|Page
Contention of Respondent

• The state agreed with the petitioners in their plea. The respondents in all the above
petitions assert a common contention that having embraced Islam, they can have four
wives irrespective of the fact that the first wife continues to be Hindu. Also, as it is the
matter of personal laws and the respondent has been charged with the sections of IPC.
So, there is no such question of violation of any fundamental rights.
• Since many a things in Muslim laws are not codified, the conversion rules in the Islam
religion is also based on the beliefs and customs which they are following for many
years. For being converted into Islamic faith, there are mainly two essentials that are,
he must be of sound mind and he must have given consent of conversion. Both the
essentials were duly fulfilled in this matter and also the certificate of conversion was
obtained by Mohammad Kareem Ghazi from Maulana Qari Mohammad Idris, Shahi
Qazi and also the Article 25 of Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. So,
one can expressly convert into the other religious expressing their rights of freedom
religion given by Constitution of India.
• There is no question of application of section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as this
act only applies on the Hindus but the respondent has turned into an Islamic faith after
the conversion. So, no personal laws other than Muslim laws can be applied in this
matter. Since, the date of conversion, he has forfeited the Hindu faith and after such
forfeiture, all the laws and acts which are binding upon Hindus only are automatically
forfeited.
• Bigamy is prohibited in Hindu Laws but Muslim laws promote polygamous nature of
marriage up to four wives. The holy book of Quran, which is also a primary source of
Muslim laws states, a Muslim man can marry with a maximum number of four wives
treating them with equal love and affection. For the application of section 494 and 495
of Indian Penal Code (Code 45 of 1860), the marriage must be declared void under the
laws. But here the Muslim laws binding upon the respondent permits him to do so.

8|Page
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT

A marriage solemnized between two Hindus would be void U/S 17 of Hindu Marriage Act,
only if two condition are satisfied:

a) the marriage is solemnized after the commencement of the Act,

b) at the date of such marriage, either party had a spouse living at the date of such marriage.

Where spouse contracted a second marriage at the time when the first marriage subsist then it
amounts to the offence of bigamy and the person shall be guilty of bigamy under section 494
IPC and such marriage shall be void. But it is essential to prove that the second marriage was
contracted legally following the due ceremony as may be required by law or by custom
prevalent upon the parties. Thus, in view of question (2), if a person contracts a second
marriage during the subsistence of his earlier marriage, such marriage apart from
being void under Section 11 & 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act would also constitute an offence
and that person could be liable to be prosecuted under Section 494 of IPC.

Reference of the case Robasa Khanum V. Khodadad Irani (1946) 48 BOMLR 864 was also
drawn, wherein, the learned Judge held that the conduct of a spouse who converts to Islam has
to be judged based on the rule of justice and right or equity and good conscience. If looked at
from this angle, the second marriage of a Hindu husband after embracing Islam, violate justice,
equity, and a good conscience and would be void as it would render the status of the second
wife as that of a concubine and children born of that wedlock as illegitimate. In addition, it
would also attract Section 494. Therefore, the court observed-

“If the person feigns to have adopted another religion just for some worldly gain or benefit, it
would be religious bigotry. Looked at from this angle, a person who mockingly adopts another
religion where plurality of marriage is permitted so as to renounce the previous marriage and
desert the wife, he cannot be permitted to take advantage of his exploitation as religion is not
a commodity to be exploited.”

The birth certificate issued by the Govt. of Union Territory of Delhi with respect a son born to
Shri G.C. Ghosh from the second wife on 27th May, 1993, and the name of the father was
recorded as G.C. Ghosh and religion as Hindu. The mother’s name is recorded as Vanita Ghosh
and religion as Hindu. Even in the application of visa for Bangladesh, the name of the applicant
was recorded as G.C. Ghosh professing Hindu religion. And the same was also depicted in the

9|Page
electoral roll. Hence it appeared that the said conversion was a feign to give effect to second
marriage.

Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act pronounces that one of the essential requisite of a valid
Hindu marriage is that either party should not have a spouse living on the date of marriage.
And that under section 11, such marriage shall be void in nature. Also under sec. 17 of the Act,
punishment for bigamy is provided and stated that Section 494 and 495 of Indian Penal Code
shall be applicable.

The offence of bigamy alleged by the wife shall be investigated and tried in accordance with
the provision of Hindu Marriage Act. Bigamous marriage is prohibited U/S 17 of the Act and
is regarded as an offence triable U/S 17 of the Act read with Section 494 of IPC. But the Court
cannot sue moto take cognizance of the offence and it the complainant who needs to file a
complaint according to the procedure prescribed in Section 198 of CrPC.

Conversion to another religion itself does not automatically terminate the marriage but only
provides a ground for divorce U/S 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Under Section 10 of the Act,
conversion to another can be a ground for a decree for judicial separation and the consequences
of it is that the first marriage remains valid and the second marriage is void and despite
conversion the person shall be liable for prosecution U/S 494 IPC. The Court held that a mere
conversion does not dissolve a marriage until a decree of divorce is being obtained from the
competent Court and until the decree is passed the marriage remains valid and subsist.

The foremost important issue brought by the instant petition was the implementation of a
Uniform Civil Code as envisaged by Article 44 of the Indian Constitution.

In Maharshi Avadhesh v. Union of India 1994 SCC, the Court specifically declined to issue a
writ directing the respondents to consider the question of enacting a common Civil Code for
all citizens of India holding that the issue rose to be a matter of policy, it was for the Legislature
to take effective steps as the Court cannot legislate. A uniform law, though, is highly desirable;
enactment thereof in one go perhaps may be counterproductive to the unity and integrity of the
nation. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, it should bring gradually progressive
change and order. Therefore, it would be inexpedient and incorrect to think that all laws be
made uniform in one go, but the process of law can remedy the mischief or defect which is at
stages.

10 | P a g e
On the question of Uniform Civil Code Justice R.M. Sahai, suggested some measures which
could be undertaken by the Government to check the abuse of religion by unscrupulous
persons, who under the cloak of conversion were found to be otherwise guilty of polygamy.

JUDGEMENT

The court found no substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner regarding the
judgment being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of India. Thus,
the court states that the alleged violation of Article 21 is misconceived. What is guaranteed
under Article 21 is that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except
according to the procedure established by law.

It is conceded that, actually and factually, none of the petitioners has been deprived of any right
of his life and personal liberty so far. However, the aggrieved persons are apprehended to be
prosecuted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 494 IPC.

Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, it was held that the conversion or
apostasy does not automatically dissolve a marriage already solemnized under the Hindu
Marriage Act but only provides a ground for divorce under Section 18. Till a decree of divorce
is passed, the marriage subsists. Any other marriage, during the subsistence of the first marriage
would constitute an offence under Section 494 read with Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 and the person, despite his conversion to some other religion, would be liable to be
prosecuted for the offence of bigamy.

LATEST CASE LAWS ON BIGAMY

1. Anand C. @ Anku Gowda and others vs. Chandramma 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 190

Facts- The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent took place in 1968. It is
averred that in the year 1972-73, the 1st petitioner with the consent of the respondent married
her sister, Savitramma. The 1st petitioner again got married in the year 1993 with the 2nd
petitioner/ Smt. Varalakshmi. Again, the averment is that, it was with the permission and
consent of the 1st and 2nd wives. It was also stated that the properties of the 1st petitioner were
equally divided amongst all of them. Therefore, it is the contention that the 1st wife was aware
of the marriage of the 1st petitioner with Smt. Savitramma, the second marriage and both Smt.

11 | P a g e
Savitramma and the respondent were aware of the marriage of the 1st petitioner with the 2nd
petitioner i.e., the third marriage. It is also stated that all of them lived together peacefully.

The respondent in 2018, filed a private complaint invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against
the petitioners herein alleging offences punishable under Section 494 of the IPC for bigamy,
Section 109 of the IPC for abatement and Section 34 of the IPC. The respondent also filed an
application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2015 on the very next day of
registration of the aforesaid private complaint.

Petitioners submissions:

It was said that the allegation of polygamy against the 1st petitioner is unfounded as the
complainant/respondent was very well aware of his relationships as with her consent, the 1st
petitioner contracted subsequent marriages. It was further submitted that the complaint was
registered in the year 2018, after about 25 years of the marriage with the 2nd petitioner and
after about 45 years of the complainant being aware of the 2nd Marriage.

Respondents submissions-

The complainant submitted that she was not even aware of the marriage of the 1st petitioner
with the 2nd petitioner. Suppressing the fact that the1st petitioner is already married, he married
the 2nd petitioner which would definitely amount to bigamy and there can be no delay in delay
in cases of bigamy is his emphatic submission.

Findings-

The Karnataka High Court has said that bigamy under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) is a continuing offence and the consent of wife for the for the subsequent marriage would
become immaterial for consideration of the offence. A single judge bench of Justice M
Nagaprasanna made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by a 76-year-old man and
his third wife, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against man’s first wife.

The bench relied on the Apex Court judgment in the case of State Of Bihar V. Deokaran Nenshi
And Another, (1972) 2 SCC 890, wherein it was held that a continuing offence is one which is
susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and
for all. It was observed-

"Several other High Courts have also taken the similar view that bigamy is a continuing
offence. If admitted facts as deliberated hereinabove are taken note of, it cannot be in doubt

12 | P a g e
that the 1st petitioner has contracted second and even third marriages during the subsistence
of the 1st marriage with the complainant. In the teeth of the admitted fact, no further
interpretation need be given, as even today, the 1st petitioner admits that he is the husband of
three women. Therefore, he is in the web of the offence punishable under Section 494 of the
IPC."

It then held that the 1st petitioner, the 2nd petitioner and the other two wives of the 1st petitioner
have all married the 1st petitioner during the subistence of each other's marriage and being
fully aware of the preceding marriage. Therefore, the proceedings will have to be continued
against them."

In regards to other petitioners the bench said, "Petitioner Nos.3, 4, 5, and 6 who are other family
members or friends of the 1st petitioner cannot be hauled into these proceedings unless there
are instances to demonstrate that they were responsible for the commission of second marriage
or even the third marriage. That is not the averment in the complaint. The 2nd marriage took
place in 1973 and the third marriage in 1993. Dragging all other members of the family and
friends into the web of these proceedings sans countenance."

2. Pratima Deka vs State of Assam and others 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 41

Facts- It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the wife of one Biren Deka, who was
working in the Irrigation Department as a Handyman and had passed away on 10.08.2016. The
petitioner claims of having three children also. The claim of the petitioner has been contested
by the respondents, submitting that the claim of the petitioner appears to be a misconceived
one because it is the respondent no. 6, who is first wife of the deceased employee and as per
law, it is the respondent no. 6, who is entitled to the family pension. The aforesaid stand of the
respondent no. 6 is also endorsed by Shri N. Upadhyay, the learned Standing Counsel,
Irrigation Department as well as Shri A. Hassan, the learned Standing Counsel, AG, Assam.
Subsequently, writ petition is filed before this High Court for enforcement of the pension.

Findings- After hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, this Court has noticed that
the parties are Hindu by religion and as per the Hindu Marriage Act there is no concept of
bigamy and rather the same is an offence under the Indian Penal Code and also a ground for
divorce. Shri Hazarika, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the children of
the second wife are also major and therefore, though some relief could have been given to the
children in case they were minor, that situation is also not there. In that view of the matter, this
Court has no other option but to dismiss this petition inasmuch as a second wife is not entitled

13 | P a g e
to family pension in existence of the first wife in this case of which the facts are admitted and
the parties are Hindus by religion. The writ petition accordingly was dismissed by the court.

NCRB DATA ON JUVENILE CRIMES

Juveniles in Conflict with Law

i. A total of 29,768 cases have been registered against Juveniles during 2020, depicting a
decrease of 7.8% over 2019 (32,269 cases). The crime rate also depicts a decrease from 7.2 in
2019 to 6.7 in 2020.

ii. A total of 35,352 juveniles were apprehended in 29,768 cases, out of which 31,618
juveniles were apprehended under cases of IPC and 3,734 juveniles were apprehended under
cases of SLL during 2020.

iii. Majority of juveniles in conflict with law apprehended under IPC & SLL crimes were in
the age group of 16 years to 18 years (76.2%) (26,954 out of 35,352) during 2020.

TABLE 1

JUVENILE CRIME AS AGAINST TOTAL IPC CASES IN INDIA (2018-

2020)
4500000
4000000
3500000
3000000
2500000
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
0
2018 2019 2020

14 | P a g e
 TABLE 2

Crime Committed by Juveniles (IPC+SLL) ‐

2018‐2020
Actual Population Rate of Total
SL State/UT 2018 2019 2020 of Children (in Crime by
Lakhs) (2011) Juveniles (2020)
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
1 Haryana 1178 1319 1042 91.2 11.4
2 Punjab 236 246 267 87.4 3.1
3 Chandigarh 137 117 50 3.2 15.4
4 Delhi 2727 2783 2455 55.4 44.3

TOTAL ALL INDIA 31591 32269 29768 4441.5 6.7

STATE-WISE JUVENILE CRIMES (2018-2020)

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
Haryana Punjab Chandigarh Delhi

2018 2019 2020

15 | P a g e
CONCLUSION AND ANALYSIS

The case of Lily Thomas vs. Union of India is a landmark case because it helped to avoid the
use of the fundamental right of practicing any religion for the selfish motive of bigamy. Though
the Court remained silent on the issue of uniform civil code for all the citizens, the Supreme
Court took a great leap forward by making it illegal to marry another lady after converting to
Islam if the first marriage is not nullified. The judgment is also important because in those days
the men who belonged to a religion that prohibited polygamy were practicing such conversions
for second marriage. This issue was outlawed by the Supreme Court in the case of “Sarla
Mudgal v. Union of India 1995 AIR 153”, and the judgment in “Lily Thomas vs. Union of
India” further strengthened the former ruling. It has been too long a time since the Lily Thomas
judgment yet a few inquiries actually stay unanswered concerning transformation and the
execution of the Uniform Civil Code.

The judgment has so far been a significant one. But there are still some issues that need
attention regarding the conversion and the Uniform Civil Code. The supporters of this uniform
code emphasize that it will bring uniformity and help in getting a better solution to issues dealt
in personal laws like marriage, divorce, inheritance etc. On the other hand, minority religions
like Islam face the threat of imposition of a Hindu majority-dominated code that will overrule
their personal laws. These issues certainly need attention because having a codified law for all
the religion will prevent conversions done with ill motives. The headlines of polygamy under
the curtail of religious conversion are still evident. The other issue that came to light is the lack
of a comprehensive and long-lasting framework to deal with the issues about the conflict
between Personal laws and Penal laws. The recent bill on Triple Talaq throws light on the
confrontation between personal laws and the penal provisions. The Muslim Women (Protection
of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2019 makes the pronouncing of ‘Triple Talaq’ a criminal offense.
Some Muslim critics opposed the bill by saying that it interferes with Muslim Personal laws.

The subsequent passing of the Anti-Conversion bills by different state governments like Uttar
Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh has further raised the need of introducing a
uniform civil code for the whole country. The demand is raised on the ground that the personal
laws hinder interfaith marriage and a Uniform Civil Code will not only help in solving interfaith
problems but also help in bringing equality for women.

Thus, it is seen that in a secular country like India, the intervention of the Judiciary to avoid
misuse of Fundamental Rights is a necessity. The judgment will remain significant not only in

16 | P a g e
the context of immoral religious conversions but also in safeguarding women from the unjust
behavior of their husbands. A good suggestion by the law commission is to introduce a section
in Hindu Marriage Act that prohibits marriage even after changing religion if the first marriage
is not dissolved. The violation of the law will attract punishment. But winning the trust of all
the communities will remain a challenge. It can be concluded that the personal laws have not
remained personal anymore and a proper step in bringing an efficient mechanism to deal with
such issues is the need of the hour.

17 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY

BARE ACTS

➢ The Constitution of India, 1950.

➢ The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
➢ The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

BOOKS

➢ Vibhute KI, PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law (LexisNexis, New York, 14th Edition, 2019).
➢ Misra S.N., Indian Penal Code (Central Law Publications, Prayagraj, 22nd Edition,
2020).
➢ Dhirajlal and Ratanlal, The Indian Penal Code (LexisNexis, New York, 36th Edition,
2020).
➢ K.N.Chandrashekhar, Pillai, Essays on Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Universal Law
Publication, New Delhi, Edition 2019).
➢ Gaur K.D., Textbook on Indian Penal Code (Universal Law Publishing, New Delhi, 6th
Edition, 2016).

WEBSITES

➢ Judgement- Lily Thomas vs Union of India AIR 2000 SC 1650 available on

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80351/.
➢ Bigamy [S. 494 IPC, S. 17 Hindu Marriage Act] available on
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2016/10/19/law-for-laymen-s-494-ipc-bigamy/
(accessed on 2 June 2022).
➢ Vidhi Periwal, “Case Analysis on Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2000)” available on
https://interestinglaws.com/lily-thomas-v-union-of-india-air-2000-sc-1650-a-case-
analysis/ (accessed on 2 June 2022).
➢ Case Brief on Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2000) available on
https://www.lawinsider.in/judgment/lily-thomas-v-union-of-india-ors (accessed on 2
June 2022).
➢ Shubhi Shukla, Blog on Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2000) available on
https://lawtimesjournal.in/lily-thomas-v-union-of-india/ (accessed on 4 June 2022).

18 | P a g e
➢ Surya J.N., “Case Analysis on Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2000)” available on
https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/ODkyMg==/Case-analysis-Lily-Thomas-vs-
Union-of-India-Ors (accessed on 4 June 2022).
➢ Subodh Asthana, “Bigamy in India” available on https://blog.ipleaders.in/bigamy-
india/ (accessed on 5 June 2022).
➢ Mohd. Aqib Aslam, “Bigamy: Statutory Provisions and Judicial findings On Bigamy”
available on https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1864-bigamy-statutory-
provisions-and-judicial-findings-on-bigamy.html (accessed on 5 June 2022).
➢ “Bigamy Is a Continuing Offence: Wife's Consent For Second Marriage Immaterial”
available at https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/karnataka-high-court-bigamy-
section-494-ipc-continuous-offence-200944 (accessed on 6 June 2022).
➢ "No Concept Of Bigamy In Hindu Religion; Second Wife Not Entitled To Family
Pension In Presence Of First Wife” available on https://www.livelaw.in/news-
updates/bigamy-hindu-religion-second-wife-not-entitled-family-pension-presence-
first-wife-gauhati-high-court-200862 (accessed on 6 June 2022).

19 | P a g e