E-Paper
HC fines Punjab man who sought protection after second marriage
HC was hearing a petition filed by a Muslim man from Malerkotla in Punjab and his purported second wife for protection from the former’s first wife and latter’s relatives
A Muslim man belonging to Punjab’s Malerkotla district, who along with his purported second wife moved the Punjab and Haryana high court seeking protection, has been slapped with ₹1-lakh fine.
The court imposed the fine after finding discrepancies in documents submitted by him, relating to his divorce with the first wife and marriage with the second one. The fine collected from the petitioner will be paid to his first wife.
The man and his purported second wife had moved court for protection, apprehending threat to their life and liberty at the hands of the former’s first wife and latter’s relatives.
While passing the order, the high court (HC) bench of justice Arvind Sangwan observed that it cannot ignore the fact that the man is not only claiming to have divorced his first wife but has also refused to maintain and take care of the upbringing of his two minor daughters, aged two and four.
“On the face of it, the present petition is nothing but a ploy to seek a seal of this court regarding the lustful and adulterous life of petitioner No. 2 (the man) with petitioner No.1 (second wife) and the court cannot be a party to the same,” the bench observed.
On the man’s argument that he has a right to perform a second marriage under the Muslim Personal Law, the bench called it “misconceived”, adding that “the court instead of taking an academic view is more concerned about the welfare of two minor girls, as it is clear that petitioner No.2 (the man) has intentionally failed to maintain his first wife and two minor daughters”.
Earlier, one of the lawyers had told court that the divorce was one-sided as the document did not carry the first wife’s signatures. It also came to light that the second marriage, performed on August 20, was not according to the Muslim Personal Law.
The lawyer had pointed out that while taking up this petition, a coordinate bench had asked the man that how much amount was he ready to give to his first wife for maintenance. Even after two hearings in the case, no such proposal ha come, it was noted.
Given the facts of the case, the court dismissed the plea even without adjudicating on the issue of protection to life. However, a division bench, subsequently acting on an appeal against this order, directed the Malerkotla senior superintendent of police to take into consideration the representation for protection, and if any substance is found, take appropriate steps to ensure the couple’s life and liberty. However, the division bench did not interfere with the condition of cost imposed on the man.
“This direction shall not be construed in any manner to restrain the official respondents (police) to proceed against the appellants in case there is some criminal case registered against them,” the division bench observed, steering clear of the controversy and validity of the marriage.
