Read Order :Saddam and another v. State of Haryana and others 

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, November 22,2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Registrar General to ensure that in all the protection petitions, where party alleges that they are in live-in relationship despite subsisting marriage or where it is alleged that the petitioners have performed second marriage, a declaration be made regarding status of minor children from the first marriage and by giving details of moveable and immoveable property as well as income of the petitioners be made, explaining the manner, in which the petitioners will take care of minor children for their upbrining, education etc.

The Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan also ordered that w.e.f. February 1,2022 onwards, before passing all such or similar protection petitions, the aforesaid conditions be complied with.

The prayer in this petition was for providing protection to petitioners i.e. Saddam(first petitioner) and Tahira(second petitioner) at the hands of private respondents, which included the parents and some other relatives.

The petition showed that it was pleaded that both the petitioners have been known to each other for the last two years and have performed marriage at Ambala Cantt, as per Nikahnama.It was also stated that the second petitioner was earlier married and she left the matrimonial home on her own sweet will and started living with the first petitioner. It was also stated that this was the second marriage of both the petitioners, as the second petitioner was married to another man and similarly, the first petitioner had also performed a second marriage.

The counsel, who appeared on behalf of the first legally wedded wife of the first petitioner, had placed on record her Aadhar Card and Aadhar Cards of five children, who were born out of the wedlock of Sarmina with Saddam. It was submitted that the lady had been left at the mercy of God, as the first petitioner had refused to maintain his legally wedded wife and five minor children aged between 1½ year to 11 years.

The Bench very clearly mentioned that question, which arises is whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is just to pass an order like a post office that as and when a petition for protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is filed, the same is forwarded to the police authorities by making an observation that without commenting upon validity or otherwise of the marriage, threat perception should be seen or to the contrary, on application of judicial mind, in a given case, rights of legally wedded wife like the first petitioner as well as five minor children should be protected and taken care of by the Court being their guardian in exercise of powers under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 

As stated by the counsel appearing on behalf of legally wedded wife of first petitioner namely Sarmina, first petitioner is owner of 1 acre of land and has share in his ancestral house, where she is residing with five minor children aged about 1½ year to 11 years in Village Dungeja, Punhana, District Nuh, noted the Bench.

The Court went on to add that it is duty of the Court to ensure that Sarmina and her five minor children are not left at mercy of the God and should get proper education and stay in the mainstream of the society and for the purpose of survival, they may not become hardcore criminal or adopt illegal means for survival.

Thus, while exercising the suo motu power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., this petition has been disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner/Superintendent of Police, Nuh (Mewat) to attach the land of first petitioner and direct Tehsildar, Nuh to ensure that from the sale proceeds of the said land, 1/4th amount is paid to Sarmina, wife of first petitioner, so as to enable her to take care of her minor children so that they may stay in the mainstream of the society and may not become hardcore criminals, to earn their livelihood or to survive by illegal means.

The Bench also passed the aforementioned directions and held that the compliance report be sent to this Court within a period of three months.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment