Mewat man fined ₹1 lakh for attempting to conceal identity of second wife
The Punjab and Haryana high court has fined a Mewat man with ₹1 lakh for trying to “conceal” identity of his second wife, whom he married recently, in a protection plea filed before the court
The Punjab and Haryana high court has fined a Mewat man with ₹1 lakh for trying to “conceal” identity of his second wife, whom he married recently, in a protection plea filed before the court.
The man, who has 10 children from his first marriage, married the woman — 20 years younger to him — on September 25 this year.
He along with the woman had approached high court seeking protection and claiming threat from the brother of the man and his own son.
The bench, led by Justice Alok Jain, observed that a review of the Aadhar Card submitted on record revealed that it was intentionally obscured, seemingly to conceal the identity of petitioner No. 1 (the wife). The bench further noted that there appeared to be no genuine threat in the present petition, suggesting that it might be an attempt to misuse the legal process for an ulterior motive. As a result, the petition was dismissed, with a cost of ₹1 lakh to be deposited within one month in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund at PGIMER, Chandigarh.
In the plea, the Mewat man had claimed that his new wife was ousted from the house on October 9 and he also left the house. The local police were approached but they did not help. Hence, the plea has been filed seeking directions to local police to ensure that both of them are not harmed, it was contended.
During the hearing it also came to light that the man is holding 40 acres of land. However, in the petition he had claimed that he was a mechanic, and his monthly income was ₹55,000. It also came to light that he has 10 children from his first wife.
The court pointed out that the man, on one hand, is asserting in the petition that his children from his first marriage should remain in his custody, while on the other hand, he is claiming there is a threat to their lives from those very children.
The court, while dismissing the plea, said: “While this court will not address the petitioners’ desires, there is no clarity on when or by whom the petitioners were threatened with harm to their life and liberty.”