18 May 2023 12:49 PM GMT
Observing that person who does not do equity even with the life companion cannot approach the court to seek approval of his relation under the umbrella of Article 21, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to issue directions for police protection of a Muslim man and his second wife.The bench of Justice Sanjay Vashishth said, “This Court cannot ignore the aspect that such petitions...
Observing that person who does not do equity even with the life companion cannot approach the court to seek approval of his relation under the umbrella of Article 21, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to issue directions for police protection of a Muslim man and his second wife.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Vashishth said,
“This 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, passed in exercise of power enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
The court observed that the protection cannot be granted “without there being any instance of actual threat to their lives or liberty”.
It was hearing the plea filed by a Muslim couple for police protection against threats received by them after the man's second marriage. The petitioners alleged that they are in danger at the hands of the private respondents. The court was informed that the man is already married and the woman with whom he has married now is a divorce.
The counsel for petitioner-husband argued that a Muslim male is entitled to perform marriage four times with four different women, if he is able to provide justice to the earlier wives. The State argued 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.
The bench asked the petitioner's counsel to assist the court on the subject of four marriages by "citing any law, statute, judgments of the Supreme Court or High Courts, or the custom, if any, followed worldwide in other countries where Mohammedans are residing". The counsel was unable to give any answer, rather, expressed his helplessness, the court noted.
"Thus, this Court is not inclined to pass any protection order, which may be construed against the existing statutory provisions of this country," Justice Vashishth said.
The court further said that the petitioner-husband has “failed to satisfy the court that what kind of justice he is providing to his first wife.”
The counsel for petitioner also failed to apprise the court of any specific instance of actual threat to the petitioner’s lives by any specific person on any specific day and time and place, it noted.
The court said it does not "find any merit in the petition" and that “no prayer for grant of police protection unnecessarily” without there being any actual threat to the lives of the petitioners” can be entertained.
“The pleadings raised in the petition and the prayer made in the representation are incomplete, formal in nature and appears to have been made only for the purpose of seeking approval of the relation and the seal of the Court in the shape of protection order passed in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” it said.
Case Title: X v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 92
Appearances: Talim Hussain for the petitioners.
Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.