'No Woman Can Share Her Husband': Allahabad High Court Dismisses Discharge Plea Of Polygamous Man
“No Indian woman can share her husband at any cost. They are literally possessive about their husbands,” Justice Chaturvedi observed, dismissing the accused plea.
New Delhi: No Indian woman can “share her husband” with anyone else and stay sane in such a case, the Allahabad High Court has observed, dismissing an appeal for discharge of a polygamous man, accused of abetting suicide by his “second” wife.
Justice Rahul Chaturvedi made the observation while dismissing a Varanasi resident's appeal challenging the order of an additional sessions judge there, rejecting his plea to discharge him in the abetment of suicide case.
“No Indian woman can share her husband at any cost. They are literally possessive about their husbands,” Justice Chaturvedi observed, dismissing the accused plea.
“It would be the biggest jolt for any married woman that her husband is being shared by some other lady or he is going to marry some other lady. In such an awkward situation, it would be impossible to expect any sanity from them,” the judge said.
The case pertains to Varanasi resident Sushil Kumar, who is facing a probe into the alleged suicide by his “second wife” who took the extreme step a day after lodging an FIR against him at a police station there on September 22, 2018.
The “second wife” whom Kumar had allegedly married without neither divorcing her first wife from whom he had two children nor apprising the "second wife" of his first marriage, killed herself after coming to know that her husband was going to marry a third woman.
In the FIR that the woman lodged before killing herself, she had also alleged that following her marriage with Kumar over 10 to 12 years ago, she had been facing all sorts of persecution and harassment by her in-laws.
Ruing the suicide by the woman, the court said, "Coming to know that her husband got married in a clandestine way with some other lady is more than sufficient reason to commit suicide.” “Sushil Kumar, the husband seems to be the main culprit at least to be tried for the offence under section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide),” the judge said, dismissing Kumar's appeal.
“It is the deceased herself who lodged the FIR against all the revisionists (woman's husband and in-laws) for committing atrocities upon her and these charges could be tested only at the time of the trial and as such, no good ground for discharge exists," the judge added.
Kumar's second wife lodged an FIR against her husband and all his family members on September 22, 2018 under sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 379 (stealing property), 494 (marrying despite having a living spouse), 504 (insulting deliberately) and 506 (threatening) of the IPC.
After going through the facts and material on record, the court said, “It is clear that deceased lodged the present FIR against her husband and other in-laws for atrocities during her lifetime. Admittedly, the deceased was his second wife allegedly married in 2010 and she has got one son with the revisionist (Kumar).” “The deceased came to know suddenly that her husband is going to marry a third woman on September 11, 2018 in Sarang Nath Temple and had applied for the registration of marriage,” the court said.
Top Headlines
Trending News
