Meghalaya High Court Upholds Discharge of Assam Rifles Personnel for Second Marriage Violation.

Shillong,The Meghalaya High Court has upheld the discharge of an Assam Rifles Rifleman who was found to have entered into a second marriage while his first marriage was still valid. The ruling highlights the strict adherence required to service regulations concerning marital status for personnel in disciplined forces.

The Rifleman’s appeal challenged his discharge under Rule 10(2) of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010, which prohibits contracting a second marriage during the lifetime of the first spouse. The appellant contended that he was only in a live-in relationship and not legally married again, arguing that this did not constitute a violation of the rule.

However, the bench, comprising Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice W. Diengdoh, rejected this argument. The court found that evidence presented showed the appellant had been living with his so-called second wife for an extended period and cohabited with her under the same roof, which was deemed sufficient to establish a marriage in the context of the case.

Chief Justice Vaidyanathan, in his judgment, emphasized that accepting the appellant’s claim of a live-in relationship would undermine the sanctity and purpose of marriage. He stated, “The submission made by the appellant cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that it was proved on record that the appellant had been living with the so-called second wife for a long period and cohabited with her under the same roof, which is sufficient to establish that there was a marriage.”

The court reinforced the importance of adhering to service regulations for disciplined forces by referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India & Ors. (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 44). The Supreme Court had emphasized the necessity for maintaining the highest order of discipline within such forces.

In light of these findings, the High Court concluded that the Rifleman’s discharge was in accordance with the established rules. The appellant’s appeal for reinstatement was subsequently dismissed, affirming that he could not challenge his discharge under these circumstances.

The decision underscores the stringent standards enforced by disciplined services and serves as a reminder of the importance of compliance with service regulations concerning personal conduct.