Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sow. Girika Pandit, and respondent nos. 3 to 5 filed nominations for the election of Councillor of Gevrai Municipal Council from Ward No. 2B. An objection was raised against the nomination of respondent no. 3, Sow. Meena Pisal, on the ground that she had five children, with one child born after the cut-off date, thus disqualifying her under Section 16(1)(K) of the Maharashtra Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayat Act, 1965. The Returning Officer rejected her nomination. Respondent no. 3 appealed to the District Court, which allowed the appeal and directed the Returning Officer to accept her nomination. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The High Court examined the provision and its explanation, which states that a person having more than two children is disqualified, but a child born after the cut-off date is not counted if it is the only child or if the couple had only one child before the cut-off date. The court interpreted the word 'couple' to mean the husband and wife together, and held that the disqualification applies to the couple as a unit. Since respondent no. 3's husband had four children from his first wife, and respondent no. 3 gave birth to one child after marriage, the couple had five children, and one child was born after the cut-off date. Therefore, respondent no. 3 was disqualified. The court set aside the District Court's order and upheld the Returning Officer's rejection of the nomination.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Disqualification for having more than two children - Section 16(1)(K) Maharashtra Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayat Act, 1965 - Interpretation of 'couple' and 'family' - The court held that the word 'couple' in the explanation refers to the husband and wife together, and the disqualification applies if the couple has more than two children, including children from previous marriages. The object of the provision is to promote population control. (Paras 1-10)
B) Election Law - Nomination rejection - Appeal against rejection - The Returning Officer rejected the nomination of respondent no. 3 on the ground that she had five children, one born after the cut-off date. The District Court allowed the appeal, but the High Court set aside that order and upheld the rejection. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondent no. 3 is disqualified under Section 16(1)(K) of the Maharashtra Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayat Act, 1965 for having more than two children, considering that her husband had four children from his first wife and she gave birth to one child after marriage.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the District Court, and upheld the Returning Officer's rejection of respondent no. 3's nomination.
Law Points
- Disqualification for having more than two children
- Interpretation of 'couple' and 'family' in election law
- Section 16(1)(K) Maharashtra Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayat Act
- 1965
- Object of population control legislation
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (12) 16
WRIT PETITION NO. 9261 OF 2011
Mr. N.L.Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. N.B.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State; Mr. S.T.Shelke, Advocate for Resp.nos. 2 & 6; Mr. A.M.Gaikwad, Advocate for Resp. No. 3
Sow. Girika W/o Badamrao Pandit
The State of Maharashtra, The Returning Officer for the Election of Municipal Council, Gevrai, Sow. Meena W/o Shantilal Pisal, Sopan S/o Dnyaneshwar Madke, Appasaheb S/o Vithal Kangude, The State Election Commissioner (Maharashtra)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the District Court allowing the appeal of respondent no. 3 against the rejection of her nomination for municipal election.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the District Court's order and uphold the Returning Officer's rejection of respondent no. 3's nomination.
Filing Reason
The petitioner, a candidate in the same election, challenged the District Court's decision that allowed respondent no. 3 to contest despite having more than two children.
Previous Decisions
The Returning Officer rejected respondent no. 3's nomination; the District Court allowed her appeal and directed acceptance of her nomination.
Issues
Whether respondent no. 3 is disqualified under Section 16(1)(K) of the Maharashtra Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayat Act, 1965 for having more than two children.
Whether the word 'couple' in the explanation to Section 16(1)(K) includes the husband and wife together, counting children from previous marriages.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that respondent no. 3's husband had four children from his first wife, and respondent no. 3 gave birth to one child after marriage, making a total of five children. The word 'couple' should be interpreted to include both spouses, and the disqualification applies.
Respondent no. 3's counsel argued that the disqualification should be considered only for the children born to the couple themselves, not including children from the husband's first marriage.
Ratio Decidendi
The word 'couple' in the explanation to Section 16(1)(K) of the Maharashtra Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayat Act, 1965 refers to the husband and wife together. The disqualification for having more than two children applies to the couple as a unit, and children from previous marriages of either spouse are counted. The object of the provision is to promote population control.
Judgment Excerpts
The word 'couple' is used in the explanation and that will be concerned with the word 'family'.
Any other interpretation would be contrary to the aim and object of the Act.
Procedural History
The Returning Officer rejected respondent no. 3's nomination. Respondent no. 3 appealed to the District Court, which allowed the appeal. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the District Court's order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayat Act, 1965: Section 16(1)(K)
