Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    LT v. UOI EDITED

    Uploaded by

    Sudeshna Sahu

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    LT v. UOI EDITED

    Uploaded by

    Sudeshna Sahu
    2 views7 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    2 views7 pages

    LT v. UOI EDITED

    Uploaded by

    Sudeshna Sahu

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 7

    LILY THOMAS V UNION OF INDIA, AIR

    2000 SC 1650
    FACTS

    Smt. Sushmita Ghosh, who is married to Shri GC Ghosh, is lodging a


    petition with the following points:
    • Their marriage was solemnized on 10th May 1984, as per the Hindu
    Marriage Act, 1955.
    • On 1st April 1992, Mr. Ghosh asked for a mutual consent divorce,
    explaining that he had converted to Islam, intending to enter a
    second marriage with Miss Vanita Gupta. He even provided a
    certificate of his conversion to Islam, authorized by a Qazi, to the
    court.
    • Despite the petitioner's earnest efforts, her appeals to Mr. Ghosh
    and his family to preserve their marriage were unsuccessful. He
    insisted that she either agree to a divorce or accept his plan to
    marry another woman.
    FACTS

    • The circumstances strongly suggest that Mr. Ghosh's conversion to Islam is


    primarily aimed at enabling a second marriage, rather than being a genuine
    religious transformation (backed by evidence such as his listing of 'Hindu' as his
    religion in a Bangladeshi visa application).
    • The petitioner is invoking Article 15(1) to challenge the unfair treatment based
    solely on religion and gender.
    • She contends that the enforcement of the Muslim Personal Law Act of 1937,
    facilitated by state action, leads to discrimination against her, which contradicts
    Article 13(1) and violates the constitution.
    • The petition seeks to prevent the impending second marriage, scheduled for 10th
    July 1992.
    • It is emphasized that the respondent cannot exploit his conversion as a pretext for
    pursuing polygamy, given the legitimacy of their existing marriage.
    ISSUES

    • Whether an apostate husband who converted merely with a view to


    avoid an earlier marriage or to enter a second marriage, be liable for the
    offence of bigamy U/s 494 of IPC?
    RATIO

    • It was clearly contended in the appellant’s petition that the respondent


    had not really converted to the ‘Muslim’ faith but had only feigned
    conversion to solemnize a second marriage.
    • 3-Pronged test of Faith, Belief and devotion (Para 38 SCC)
    • The respondent does not practice the Muslim rites as prescribed nor
    has he changed his name or religion and other official documents,
    proving that the said conversion was not a matter of having faith in the
    Muslim religion but only to get rid of first marriage.
    • Since under the Hindu Marriage Act, a bigamous marriage is prohibited
    and has been constituted as an offence under Section 17 of the 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 the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read
    with Section 494 of IPC.
    RATIO

    • Any marriage solemnized between two Hindus is said to be void if the


    following conditions are satisfied:
     If the marriage is solemnised after the commencement of the Act,
     If at the date of such marriage, either party had a spouse living.
    • 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.
    CONCLUSION

    • 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.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy