Punjab and Haryana High Court: In an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to State authorities to protect life and liberty after second marriage, Sanjay Vashisth J. refused to pass any protection orders since the petitioner could neither prove any threat to the life and liberty, nor could satisfy the Court with the kind of justice he is providing to the first wife.
The petitioners sought directions to the State authorities to protect their life and liberty allegedly in danger at the hands of the respondents who are unhappy family members because the petitioners solemnized nikah against their wishes. They further sought directions to restrict any harassment or interference with their married life.
The first petitioner, a professional truck driver earning monthly salary of Rs 20,000, was already married, and no child was born out of the said wedlock. It was also disclosed that the other petitioner, the wife in second marriage, was also married and divorced orally on 13-3-2022. The petitioner had alleged that being a Muslim female, he is entitled to perform marriage four times with four different women if he is able to do justice to other wives.
When the Court asked the petitioner for assisting the Court by citing a law, statute, judgments or custom followed across the world among Mohammedans related to four marriages by Muslim males during subsistence of earlier marriages, the counsel expressed helplessness. Thus, the Court was not inclined to pass a protection order which may be construed against the existing statutory provisions.
The Court expressed that such petitions filed under the garb of threat to life and liberty actually do so to get approval of illegal relations by the seal of the Court order in exercise of Article 226 of Constitution of India in the absence of any actual threat to their lives or liberty. It further said that the petitioner failed to satisfy the Court on the kind of justice he is providing to the first wife. The petitioner also could not specify any instance of actual threat.
The Court commented that “Person who does not do equity with others and even to the life companion, cannot approach the Court to seek approval of his relation under the umbrella of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court viewed that no prayer can be entertained unnecessarily for grant of police protection without there being any actual threat to the lives of the petitioners. It further said that the pleadings in the instant petition appear to seek approval of the relation and Court's seal in the form of protection orders passed under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
[Aalam v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 476, decided on 10-5-2023]
Judgment by: Justice Sanjay Vashisth
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioners: Advocate Talim Hussain
For State: Assistant Advocate General Vikas Bhardwaj
