24   §20

Chapter II—Conversion to Mahomedanism

valid contract of marriage with any other person. Thus, if she, after conversion
to Mahomedanism, goes through a ceremony of marriage with a Mahomedan,
she will be guilty of bigamy under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.7
(2) In Skinner v Orde,8 a Christian man, married to a Christian wife, declared himself a Mahomedan, and went through a ceremony of marriage with
another woman. The Privy Council agreed with the High Court in thinking
that the marriage was of doubtful validity. The Calcutta High Court has held
that where an Indian Christian domiciled in India and married to an Indian
Christian also domiciled in India embraces the Islamic faith, he may enter into
a valid contract of marriage with a Mahomedan woman, though the first marriage with the Christian wife subsists.9
In Khambatta v Khambatta,10 a Mahomedan married a Christian woman in
Christian form. The wife became a convert to the Mahomedan religion and the
husband divorced her by talak. The Bombay High Court held that on the wife
renouncing Christianity the lex domicilii applied the law of their religion and
that the divorce was valid.
See §321, “Apostasy from Islam.”
(4) According to Muslim law a distinction is made between conversion to
Islam of one of the spouses when such conversion takes place:
	

(1) 	in a country subject to Muslim law, and

	

(2) 	in a country where the law of Islam is not the law of the land.

In the first case, when one of the parties embraces Islam, he or she should
offer Islam to the other spouse, and if the latter refuses the marriage can be dissolved. In the second case the marriage is automatically dissolved after the lapse
of a period of three months after the adoption of Islam by one of the spouses.
This, however, is not the law in India. In India the spouse who has embraced
Islam cannot file a suit for divorce or for a declaration that the marriage is dissolved against the spouse who refuses to embrace Islam.11

	7.	 Govt of Bombay v Ganga, (1880) 4 Bom 330; In the matter of Ram Kumari, (1891) 18 Cal 264; Mst Nandi
v The Crown, (1920) 1 Lah 440 : 59 IC 33.
	8.	 Skinner v Orde, (1871) 14 MooIA 309 : 10 BLR 125.
	9.	 John Jiban Chandra v Abinash, (1939) 2 Cal 12 : 183 IC 75 : AIR 1939 Cal 417.
	10.	 Khambatta v Khambatta, (1935) 59 Bom 278 : 36 BomLR 1021 : 154 IC 1075 : AIR 1935 Bom 5
affirming 36 BomLR 11 : 149 IC 1232 : AIR 1934 Bom 93.
	11.	 Robasa Khanum v Khodadad Bomanji, (1946) 48 BomLR 864 : AIR 1947 Bom 272; Noor Jehan v Eugene
Tischence, (1941) 45 CWN 1047 : 74 CalLJ 212 : AIR 1941 Cal 582; Sayeda Khatoon v M Obadiah,
(1945) 49 CWN 745; Budansa Fatma Bi, (1914) 26 MadLJ 260 : 22 IC 697; contra Mt. Ayesha Bibi v
Subodh Chakravarty, (1945) 49 CWN 439 : AIR 1949 Cal 436.

2_Mulla_Principles of Mahomedan Law_Chapter02.indd 24

26-Jul-21 11:14:01 PM