No protection to Muslim man, second wife: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, June 6

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has expressed disinclination to pass any protection order which may be construed against the existing statutory provisions of the country.

The assertion came as Justice Sanjay Vashisth dismissed a protection petition filed by a couple, who solemnised ‘nikah’ against kin’s wishes, after their counsel expressed helplessness to address the court on the issue of four marriages by Muslim men during the subsistence of earlier marriage.

Counsel mum on marriage plea

• The couple’s counsel submitted that a Muslim man was entitled to perform marriage four times with four women if he was able to provide justice to the earlier wife
• The court put a question to counsel to assist it by citing any law, judgments or custom, if any, which counsel was unable to answer

Justice Vashisth, during the course of hearing, was told that the man –– a truck driver –– was already married. The woman, on the other hand, had been orally divorced. Their counsel submitted that a Muslim man was “entitled to perform marriage four times with four different women, if he was able to provide justice to the earlier wife.”

The state counsel, meanwhile, opposed the submission by the petitioners’ counsel before vehemently arguing that no Muslim man was entitled or permitted to marry four times at his whims and fancies. For the purpose, there had to be an express consent from the existing wife of such Muslim man.

The state counsel further submitted there was neither any averment in the petition, nor was any material put forth by the petitioners’ counsel before the court showing that the man had obtained express consent from his first wife at the time of performing second ‘nikah’ with the other petitioner.

Justice Vashisth asserted that the reasonable explanation was not put forth by the petitioners’ counsel as to why the first wife, though affected, was not impleaded as a party. “In relation to four marriages by Muslim men during subsistence of earlier marriage(s), this court put a specific question to counsel for the petitioners to assist this court 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, to which he is unable to give any answer. Rather, he expressed his helplessness.”

Justice Vashisth observed that the counsel refused to assist the court on the issue after doing some research work on the subject and insisted that the petition be decided by passing any order whatsoever. Dismissing the petition after looking at other aspects of the matter as well, Justice Vashisth asserted that the court did not find any merit in the petition. This petition was dismissed being devoid of merit.