Does conversion to Islam end a Hindu marriage automatically?

No. Marriage subsists until a court grants divorce. A second marriage during subsistence attracts IPC 494 via Section 17 HMA.

Did the Court uphold Sarla Mudgal?

Yes. It reaffirmed that converting only to remarry is a sham; the second marriage is void and punishable under IPC 494/495.

Is Article 25 violated by criminalising such second marriages?

No. Freedom of religion does not protect fraudulent conversion for evading existing marital obligations.

Is fear of bigamy prosecution a breach of Article 21?

No. Lawful prosecution for bigamy is not a violation of life and personal liberty.

Does Muslim law allow any converted husband to marry again freely?

No. Even in Muslim law, plurality is not unconditional. Conversion cannot legalise bigamy while the first marriage exists.

Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000)

PUBLISH_DATE: 31 Oct 2025 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Bigamy after conversion, IPC 494, HMA Sections 11 & 17, Article 25 SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Sarla Mudgal, fraudulent conversion, personal law, Article 21, IPC 495

Quick Summary

This case confirms: conversion alone does not end a subsisting marriage. A person cannot convert to Islam just to remarry and bypass the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA). Until a court grants divorce, the first marriage continues.

Any second marriage in that period is void and the husband is liable for bigamy under IPC 494/495. The Court upheld Sarla Mudgal (1995) and rejected claims based on Articles 21 and 25.

Issues

Is a second marriage after a sham conversion void and punishable under IPC 494?
Does fear of bigamy prosecution violate Article 21 (life and liberty)?
Does the rule in Sarla Mudgal violate Article 25 (freedom of religion)?

Rules

Marriage Subsists Till Divorce

Mere conversion does not dissolve marriage. Divorce decree is essential; otherwise, second marriage = bigamy (IPC 494 read with Section 17 HMA).

Muslim Law Context

Plurality under Muslim law is not unconditional. Conversion cannot legitimise bigamy while the first marriage stands.

Penal Accountability

Violators cannot avoid general penal law by claiming conversion. Fraudulent use of religion is not protected by Article 25.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline graphic for Lily Thomas v. Union of India

1984: Sushmita Ghosh married Gyan Chand Ghosh under Hindu rites.

1992: Husband claimed conversion to Islam and sought second marriage; showed a certificate from Shahi Qazi.

Sushmita filed Article 32 petition; the matter was tagged with Sarla Mudgal batch.

1995: Sarla Mudgal held second marriage after such conversion is void and punishable.

Religious group and others sought review and filed writs challenging the rule on Articles 21 & 25 grounds.

2000: In Lily Thomas, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Sarla Mudgal position and clarified the law.

Arguments

Petitioners (Lily Thomas & others)

Conversion was feigned to commit bigamy; first marriage continued under HMA.
Second marriage must be void; apply IPC 494/495.
Article 25 does not protect fraud or evasion of personal law duties.

Respondents (Union/Intervenors)

Claimed criminalising second marriage post-conversion chills religion (Art. 25).
Argued Article 21 implications (fear of prosecution).
Sought dilution of Sarla Mudgal rule.

Judgment (Held)

Judgment illustration for Lily Thomas case

Sarla Mudgal principle upheld: conversion to Islam only to remarry does not end the first marriage.
Second marriage during subsistence is void under Section 11 HMA and attracts IPC 494/495 via Section 17 HMA.
Article 25 not violated—fraudulent or strategic conversion is outside the protection of religious freedom.
Article 21 claim rejected—legitimate prosecution for bigamy is not a breach of life or liberty.
Facts (e.g., continued use of Hindu name/records) showed sham conversion, supporting penal liability.

Ratio Decidendi

Conversion ≠ dissolution. Personal law obligations endure until a lawful divorce. A second marriage during subsistence is void and punishable; Article 25 does not shield fraudulent conversion.

Why It Matters

Protects spouses—prevents misuse of religion to evade marital duties.
Aligns personal law with criminal accountability under IPC 494/495.
Clarifies scope of religious freedom vs fraud.

Key Takeaways

Second marriage after sham conversion is void.

IPC 494/495 apply via Section 17 HMA.

No automatic dissolution without divorce decree.

Article 25 ≠ protection for fraud.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “CIV: Convert? It’s Void.”

Convert does not cancel the first marriage.
It’s still subsisting without a decree.
Void second marriage → IPC 494.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Effect of conversion to Islam on a subsisting Hindu marriage and liability for a second marriage.

Rule

No dissolution without decree; second marriage void; IPC 494/495 via Section 17 HMA; Article 25 not a shield for fraud.

Application

Conduct (unchanged records, identity) showed feigned conversion; criminal liability sustained.

Conclusion

Sarla Mudgal affirmed; second marriage void; prosecution valid; Articles 21 & 25 claims fail.

Glossary

IPC 494 / 495: Bigamy offences; 495 covers concealment of former marriage from the person married.
Section 11 HMA: Declares certain marriages void, including during subsistence of a prior valid marriage.
Section 17 HMA: Applies IPC 494/495 to Hindus when a second marriage is contracted during an existing marriage.