Premium

76-year-old man’s second marriage sparks family threats: Uttarakhand High Court orders police action

The Uttarakhand High Court was hearing a plea filed by the man and his 43-year-old wife, who were allegedly facing threats from the family.

uttarakhand high court second marriage threatsThe man claimed before the Uttarakhand High Court that it was with his first wife’s consent that he got married to a 43-year-old divorcee. (Image generated using AI)

Uttarakhand High Court news: The Uttarakhand High Court recently stepped in to address safety concerns raised by an elderly man and his wife, who claimed that their lives were under threat from the man’s son with his first wife and from the brothers of the woman’s former husband.

Justice Rakesh Thapliyal was hearing the plea of a 76-year-old man and a 43-year-old woman, who sought directions to the police to provide adequate protection from the said relatives.

Justice Rakesh Thapliyal uttarakhand high court Justice Rakesh Thapliyal directed the SHO to call the family members and advise them not to take the law into their hands.

The Uttarakhand High Court noted that although no divorce decree was placed on record, the woman appeared before the court and stated that her former husband had given her triple talaq orally.

“In such view of the matter, the instant writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the SSP Haridwar to assess the threat perception of the petitioners from respondent no. 4 to 6 (relatives of the couple) and if he comes to the conclusion that there is a threat perception, take appropriate steps to save their life and liberty,” read the order on April 15.

The Uttarakhand High Court further directed that the concerned station house officer (SHO) should call the woman’s former husband’s brother and the man’s son and advise them not to take the law into their hands.

Marriage and threat allegations

  • The man claimed before the Uttarakhand High Court that it was with his first wife’s consent that he got married to a 43-year-old woman, who had been divorced by her former husband.
  • The court noted that no specific record concerning the date of the divorce was mentioned by the man, nor was anything placed on record indicating the consent of his first wife.
  • It was contended that the petitioners, who are Muslim, got married in March 2023 and have been living together since.
  • It was further submitted that their marriage is also registered, a copy of which is placed on record, revealing that it was registered in the same month that they got married.
  • The couple mentioned that a girl was since born to them, and is now about 13 months old.
  • Considering the threat perception from the brothers of the woman’s former husband, the petitioners sought adequate protection.
  • It was also contended that a representation was also made to the relevant authority for their safety in April 2026, but no action was taken.

Protection irrespective of marital status

In another unrelated case, the Delhi High Court ruled that the right to life and protection cannot be denied to consenting adults merely because they are married to other partners. The court thus granted police protection to a couple in a live-in relationship facing threats from family members.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee was hearing a plea filed by a couple in a live-in relationship seeking police protection from threats allegedly issued by the woman’s husband and family members. The court held that consenting adults are entitled to protection of their life and liberty regardless of their marital status.

Story continues below this ad

“The status of the citizens, whether they are (un)married or are in a Live-In relationship, is not a germane factor for consideration when this court is dealing with the present proceedings. Their right to freedom and/ or right to life and personal liberty deserves protection from this Court since, at the end of the day, both the petitioners, being consenting adults, have approached this Court for adequate protection,” the Delhi High Court said on April 6.

The court emphasised that constitutional guarantees under Articles 19 (protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) extend equally to all citizens, irrespective of their marital status.
According to the submissions placed before the court, the woman was subjected to humiliation and torture by her husband since 2016. Eventually, she left the matrimonial home and began residing with the co-petitioner in a live-in relationship from February, of her own free will.

However, the couple claimed that their relationship triggered hostility from the woman’s family and husband, who allegedly attempted to track them down and intimidate them.

Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape. Expertise Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen. Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on: Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts. Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy. Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More

 

Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
Advertisement
Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments