Live-In Partner/'Second Wife' Not Included Within Meaning Of Spouse Or Family For Granting Parole: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court held that live-in partners were not included within the meaning of the term ‘spouse’ or ‘family’ for the grant of parole under Rule 1201 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
The Bench explained that as per the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, the word ‘spouse’ as mentioned in Rule 1201 would imply only a legally wedded husband or a wife in its “strict and precise interpretation” and it would exclude any live-in partner from its ambit since a live-in partner cannot fall under the definition of ‘spouse’. Similarly, a second husband or wife in a case where such a marriage would be illegal/invalid/void/impermissible in law was also not included within the ambit of ‘spouse’.
A Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “Though illness of a family member is one of the major grounds for grant of parole to a convict, when analyzed from the perspective of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, this Court is of the view that Ms. T, the “second wife or live-in partner‟ of petitioner Mr. Sonkar, who is not her legally wedded wife, cannot be included within the meaning of term “spouse‟ and consequently within the definition of “family‟ under Rule 1201 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.”
Advocate Ansh Makkar represented the petitioner, while ASC Amol Sinha appeared for the respondents.
The inmate had filed a petition for a grant of parole for maintaining conjugal relationships with his partner, who he claimed was his wife (second wife), while he was already married (first wife) with three children.
The Court noted that the inmate was granted parole multiple times due to his first wife's illness and surgeries. He allegedly claimed to have married the second wife without evidence of divorce from the first wife. Even though the Court was aware that the inmate had sought parole after his second wife gave birth to a stillborn child, he still filed a petition seeking parole to ‘consummate’ his marriage with the second wife.
“Mr. Sonkar did not realize that the legal records created in the Courts in digitized form are not destroyed and can be perused by a Court of law even if the same are old, as in the present case, of the year 2012…The digital footprints of the legal record revealed the truth of the story. One of it being that the question of consummation of marriage with Ms. T does not arise since she was already pregnant and had given birth to a still born child,” the Court remarked.
The Bench noted the misguided conduct of the inmate who filed several pleadings for the grant of parole wherein he did not disclose the fact that his live-in partner was not his legally wedded wife.
Considering the self-contradictory stands presented by the inmate, the Court held that the inmate was “not entitled to grant of parole, on grounds of procreation or maintaining conjugal relationships with his second wife/live-in partner, when he already has a legally wedded wife, as well as three children born out of that wedlock.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Sonu Sonkar v. The Lt Governor, Delhi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:3763)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Ansh Makkar and Vaibhav Sinha
Respondents: ASC Amol Sinha; Advocates Ashvini Kumar and Chavi Lazarus
