The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea of a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable who was removed from service after entering into a second marriage while his first marriage was still valid. The bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla ruled on August 20, 2025, that the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner was legally sound and in line with the CISF service rules.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Ashwani Kumar, had challenged his dismissal, arguing that his first marriage had been dissolved through a "marriage dissolution deed" signed before villagers and witnesses in October 2017. However, the court made it clear that a Hindu marriage, once solemnised, cannot be dissolved in such an informal manner. A valid dissolution must take place only through a competent court of law under statutory provisions like the Hindu Marriage Act.
Rule on Marriage in Forces
The case revolved around Rule 18 of the CISF Rules, 2001, which disqualifies any person who marries while having a spouse living. The petitioner contended that the rule applied only at the time of recruitment, not after joining the force. Rejecting this argument, the bench cited the earlier ruling of Ex. Head Constable Bazir Singh v. Union of India, where a similar provision under the Border Security Force Rules was interpreted broadly.
Read also:- Gujarat High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Bootlegger in Vadodara
In that judgment, the court had observed:
"If a person with two wives is not even eligible for appointment, it would be absurd to say that he could enter into a second marriage after joining service."
The Delhi High Court reiterated that the spirit behind such rules is to ensure discipline and moral responsibility among personnel of armed and paramilitary forces.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Orders Corrections in A.T. Goyee Enterprises vs Nand Lal Rathi Case
The Judges also noted that the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal against the Bazir Singh judgment, strengthening the legal precedent. The bench remarked that the petitioner had "no defence" since his first marriage was legally subsisting when he contracted the second marriage.
Although in the earlier case the punishment was reduced to compulsory retirement, the court clarified that such relief could not be extended here as the petitioner had not completed the required service period. "We are, therefore, unable to come to the aid of the petitioner," the order concluded.
Case Title: Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 5048/2022
