Troubles mounted for viral PUB-G couple Seema Haider and her husband Sachin after the former’s Pakistani husband sued them for cheating and also questioned the validity of their marriage.
According to a TOI report, Haider’s Pakistani husband Ghulam Haider moved to a city court this week through an Indian lawyer, accusing Seema and her partner Sachin Meena of cheating.
Ghulam Haider’s legal team applied the CrPC’s Section 156 (3), which allows a magistrate to order an investigation.
Pakistani national Seema Haider entered India illegally via Nepal with her children to live with her lover Sachin, whom she claimed to have met through PUB-G.
The two claimed to have met while playing PUBG and fallen in love. The two claim to have got married in Kathmandu during an earlier meeting.
Haider’s husband’s lawyer, Momin Malik, alleged that Seema had not taken divorce from Ghulam Haider and that her marriage with Sachin was not valid.
Appearing before additional chief judicial magistrate Pradeep Kumar Kushwaha on Thursday, Malik held that Seema had mentioned Ghulam Haider as her husband in her bail application after she was arrested for illegally entering India, even though she publicly claimed to have married Sachin, the publication reported.
Momin contended Seema, according to the terms and conditions of the bail order, should not be involved in any criminal activity.
“However, she has been frequently making controversial statements, creating a communal divide. Besides, her second marriage is not valid as she has not taken a divorce from Ghulam Haider. When Seema was arrested, she identified herself as Ghulam Haider’s wife. She is now claiming she married Sachin on March 13, 2023, in Nepal. If she had married Sachin, why did she use Ghulam Haider’s name in the bail plea?” the publication quoted Malik as saying in court.
Seema and Sachin’s counsel AP Sing, on the other hand, called Malik’s application a “public stunt.”
On being asked why she mentioned Ghulam Haider as her husband in the bail plea, Singh said Seema and Sachin were in police custody at the time. “The accused are not solely responsible for the paperwork. Police or clerks may have written something without checking facts,” he claimed.
Comments
0 comment