<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2000 (5) TMI 1045 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160090</link>
    <description>Mere conversion from Hinduism to Islam does not dissolve a valid Hindu marriage; the marital tie continues until a competent court grants divorce, because the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 treats dissolution as judicially regulated. Consequently, any subsequent marriage contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage, even if purportedly under Muslim law, is void vis-à-vis the first marriage and attracts criminal liability for bigamy under s. 494 IPC read with s. 17 HMA, irrespective of conversion, and the convert remains prosecutable for bigamy. The SC further held that no judicial directions could be issued to enforce Art. 44, limiting relief to declaring such post-conversion second marriage void when conversion is a device to evade the first marriage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2025 16:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 1045 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160090</link>
      <description>Mere conversion from Hinduism to Islam does not dissolve a valid Hindu marriage; the marital tie continues until a competent court grants divorce, because the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 treats dissolution as judicially regulated. Consequently, any subsequent marriage contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage, even if purportedly under Muslim law, is void vis-à-vis the first marriage and attracts criminal liability for bigamy under s. 494 IPC read with s. 17 HMA, irrespective of conversion, and the convert remains prosecutable for bigamy. The SC further held that no judicial directions could be issued to enforce Art. 44, limiting relief to declaring such post-conversion second marriage void when conversion is a device to evade the first marriage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160090</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>