Punjab and Haryana HC refuses to grant protection to Muslim man, second wife - Hindustan Times
close_game
close_game

Punjab and Haryana HC refuses to grant protection to Muslim man, second wife

By, Chandigarh
May 18, 2023 02:45 AM IST

Punjab and Haryana HC bench of justice Sanjay Vashisth observed that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the court that what kind of justice he is providing to his first wife. The court recorded that the petitioner’s lawyer was not able to give a satisfactory answer as to why the earlier wife was not associated with the proceedings.

The Punjab and Haryana high court has refused to grant protection to a Nuh Muslim man and his second wife as the court found that the first one has not been associated with proceedings.

The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has refused to grant protection to a Nuh Muslim man and his second wife as the court found that the first one has not been associated with proceedings. (Getty Images/ Representational image)
The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has refused to grant protection to a Nuh Muslim man and his second wife as the court found that the first one has not been associated with proceedings. (Getty Images/ Representational image)

The bench of justice Sanjay Vashisth observed that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the court that what kind of justice he is providing to his first wife. “Person who does not do equity with others and even to the life of companion, cannot approach the court to seek approval of his relation under the umbrella of Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” justice Vashisth observed, adding that the court cannot ignore the aspect that such petitions are filed by the petitioners under the garb of seeking protection, portraying threat perception to their lives and liberty, but with an actual motive to get approval of their illegal relations, under the seal of the court order without there being any instance of actual threat to their lives or liberty.

Hindustan Times - your fastest source for breaking news! Read now.

The plea from one, Aalam and co-petitioner, Farida, stated to be his second wife, was filed seeking directions to the authorities to protect their lives and liberty, which was stated to be at danger at the hands some relatives, who were not happy because they had solemnised ‘nikah’ against their wishes.

The Muslim man had mentioned he was already married but had no child. The petitioner is a professional truck driver and is earning monthly income of about 20,000. For seeking the protection order, it was stated that, being a Muslim male, he was entitled to perform marriage four times with four different women, if he was able to provide justice to the earlier wife(s), it was submitted.

The court recorded that the petitioner’s lawyer was not able to give a satisfactory answer as to why the earlier wife was not associated with the proceedings. However, the plea mentioned that even second wife was earlier married and was divorced orally by her previous husband.

The state’s counsel had opposed the plea and submitted that no Muslim male is entitled or permitted to marry four times at his whims and fancies, and for the said purpose there has to be express consent from existing wife of such Muslim male. Neither there is any such averment in the pleadings nor any material has been put forth showing that the male petitioner had obtained any express consent from his first wife at the time of performing second ‘nikah’.

The plea was filed on February 9 and on March 10, their counsel had sought time to argue as to under what circumstances a male or female can perform more than one marriage, as per Mohammedan law.

However, when the case was taken up on May 10, the court recorded it was inclined to afford an opportunity to the petitioners’ lawyer to assist the court in relation to four marriages by Muslim males during subsistence of earlier marriage(s). This court put a specific question to the lawyer of the petitioners to cite any law, statute, judgments of Supreme Court or high courts, or the custom, if any, followed worldwide in other countries where Mohammedans are residing, after doing some research work on the subject. However, the lawyer “flatly refused” for the same, and insisted that this petition be decided by passing any order whatsoever, the judge recorded in the final order.

“Thus, this court is not inclined to pass any protection order, which may be construed against the existing statutory provisions of this country,” it said, dismissing the plea.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Share this article
SHARE
Story Saved
Live Score
OPEN APP
Saved Articles
Following
My Reads
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Friday, March 01, 2024
Start 14 Days Free Trial Subscribe Now
Follow Us On