Case Summary : MRS. A MARATHAMMA v. A. MUNUSWAMI AND ORS.

Author : Darshi Sanghvi

• EQUIVALENT CITATIONS:

AIR 1951 Mad 888, (1951) IMLJ 694

•  BENCH

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. AYYAR

• INTRODUCTION

“Bigamy is the act of marrying one person while legally married to another”

While monogamy is regarded as the rule since Vedic times, polygamy has continued to exist side by side. Mrs A. Marathamma v. A Munuswami and Ors. is a case that attempts to analyse the right of reconversion from Christianity to Hinduism and its relation with a second marriage.

• FACTS

The Petitioner, Mrs. Marthammal (29), a Christian school mistress, fell in love with the first accused Munuswami, a Hindu Student (Past 18) and began having sexual intercourse with him. To regularise their illicit relationship, she, her father and brother suggested him to get baptised and covert into a Christian, which he did. 8 days later, he got married with the petitioner in the same church, without the knowledge of his parents and relatives about his conversion, their sexual relationship, his desire to get married to her or even the fact that he knows her. In 1946, the first accused and the petitioner got estranged and lived away. Resultantly, the petitioner wrote him several letters, explaining her love and said that she would get some other girl to marry him and he can live a happy life with both his wives and would offer him all the money he wants, provided he does not marry a Hindu. She also suggested that he spend 24 hours in a hotel room with the fair girl she has picked. However, despite a temporary reconciliation and a son, he left in the latter half of 1948 and married Sarojini (P.W.11), a Hindu, according to Hindu rites, yet again without anyone’s knowledge regarding his conversion into Christianity and his relationship with the petitioner. The Madras Hindu Bigamy & Divorce Act came into existence one month after the marriage. The evidence of his second wife P.W.11 suggested that the first accused had relapsed to Hinduism and was observing solely Hindu customs and festivals and that they both had married solely as per Hindu rites.

ISSUES AND FACTS OF LAW

• Whether the first accused had abandoned Christianity.
• Whether a man can reconvert into a Hindu or into any other religion post his conversion into a Christian.
• Whether the Madras Hindu Bigamy & Divorce Act was in existence at the time of the first accused’s wedding with P.W.11.
• Whether the present case falls under the scope of Section 494, 495 and 496, and Section 109 of IPC.

JUDGEMENT

• Contrary to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gopal Menon, the lower court is said to have interpreted the ruling and passage in Gour’s Indian Penal Code correctly. Though we consider that the profession of Christianity does impose a religious obligation to monogamy, that obligation is inexistent when the religion is abandoned for another religion that recognises the concept of polygamy. The Indian Union is a Secular state which confers the right on every individual to follow the religion he likes or no religion at all. The man like the first accused shall be allowed to revert to Hinduism. Such reconversion has existed since several centuries. It is correctly stated by the lower court that it is a law that on reconversion, a man acquires rights of the religion he reverts to, subject to any law withdrawing particular rights. No such law exists in the present case.

• Mr. Gopala Menon’s claim that one month isn’t a sufficient time for reconversion is incorrect. If the intention to abandon one religion and embrace another can be inferred beyond reasonable doubt, even few hours are sufficient for reconversion. It can be asserted that the first accused was a Hindu when he married P.W.11, despite the fact that his denial of converting into Christian was not believed by the Court because of the evidences regarding his Baptism. Bearing in mind all the facts, the order of the lower court discharging the accused cannot be regarded as illegal, irregular, improper or to have resulted in a failure of justice.

• Mrs. Marthammal is undoubtedly in a miserable predicament due to the acts of the first accused and it will be likewise with P.W.11 if the second marriage is considered illegal. Imprisoning the first accused would not be of much relief to the petitioner. Eventually, even the petition regarding A1 is dismissed, along with the dismissal of the petition against accused 2 (father of A1) and accused 3 (father of P.W.11).