The Law Commission report on bigamy was not so much on the Muslim law as on the need to amend the Hindu law in terms of a SC verdict, which ruled that conversion to Islam would not allow a man to have a second wife without divorcing the first. Law Commission member Tahir Mahmood clarified this in a bid to allay ‘‘grave mis understandings’’ among Muslims on its report. As evident from its title, ‘Preventing bigamy via conversion to Islam’, Mahmood said the report suggested an amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act on the lines of the 1995 SC judgment in Sarla Mudgal’s case blocking Hindu men from using Islam as a licence to acquire a second wife without getting their first marriage dissolved. The Law Commission recommended incorporation of Sarla Mudgal law in the Hindu Marriage Act as Hindus continued to marry under the cover of conversion to Islam despite the 1995 verdict. In a statement, Mahmood claimed, ‘‘The Muslim law on bigamy, or the state of bigamy among the Indian Muslims, was not at all the issue before the Commission.’’ As for the Law Commission’s reference to the reforms made by Islamic countries, Mahmood said, ‘‘The true nature of the Muslim law on bigamy, which insists on equal treatment of co-wives and does not at all allow forsaking the first wife without divorce in search of a new one, was explained only in this context.’’

nothing bad in incorporating such a provision.

Definetly it needs amendment. By taking "conversion to Muslim" as an advantage, one shall not be allowed to  indirectly violate the hindu law.

Dear Members, as far as Sarla Mudgal case is concerned it is in the matter of genuine conversion and not to escape from the law to enable the converted hindus to commit bigamy. If Hindu law is to be amended the expression any two hindus in section 5 has to be suitably amended in line with Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 of England: In section11 of the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1973, the expression employed therein section 11  " A marriage celebrated after 31st July 1973 shall be void on the following grounds only, that is to say  (c) that the parties are not respectively male and female. Why not we have a clear statements of law inspite of introducing a fiction in that section 5 of the Act? Fiction in a sense, any two hindus mean only male and female?

Related 'Constitutional Law' Lawyers

Rajesh Sriv Visheshwar Prakash Yed JEEVAGAN AD V R SHROFF Mento Isac Jagadishwar Mukesh Rana R.K Nanda Varun Singh S P SRIVAST anand Advocate Ni RAKHI BUDHI D Bhattacha Surendranat Sandeep Nai kavksatyana Zulfiqar Al

Click here to List yourself in Lawyers Directory Learn about