Married Woman Cannot Be Presumed To Have Disowned Residential Rights At Her Parents’ House: Madras High Court

“A married woman though ordinarily lives at her husband's place, cannot be presumed to have disowned her residential rights at her parents’ house on account of her marriage. For the purpose of getting a separate ration card after her marriage her name would have got deleted from her parents’ration card and included in her husband’s ration card. With that alone it can not be said that a married woman had severed her ties with her parents’ place and her residential status in respect of her parent’s house has come to a closure once and for all. The rules of marriage do not impose any such condition on a woman,” the court observed.

Justice RN Manjula stressed that retaining or waiving the residential address was completely at the will of the married woman and her family in certain circumstances. This will, along with a house was enough to provide her with a residential certificate, the court added.

The petitioner, G Mayakannan, had challenged one B Saranya’s appointment to the post of Panchayat Secretary. Mayakannan claimed that Saranya was not a resident of the Panchayat and had secured the employment through forgery and misrepresentation. He also added that Saranya was much junior to him in the Employment Exchange registration roster.

Though the court noted that the terms of employment did not impose a compulsion that the senior most person sponsored by the employment exchange should be selected, the court added that a person who has registered earlier and waiting should not be bypassed for the purpose of sponsoring a person who had registered later.

With respect to the challenge to residence, the court observed that Saranya’s parents were still in the Panchayat and had not uprooted from the place and thus Saranya had every right to visit or stay with her parents as per her convenience and choice.

The court further observed that there was a notion that married woman completely abandons her native place and assumes her husband's place as her place of residence. However, the court added that if a woman chooses to live between her natal home and marital home, nothing could prevent her from exercising that option.

The court also noted that Saranya had produced legal notices exchanged between herself and her husband and had submitted that there was an ongoing marital discord between them. The court remarked that these were personal to Saranya and Mayakannan should not have driven her to such an extent where she was compelled to reveal the private facts. The court added that a woman’s choice to exercise residential rights at parents home should not be viewed from a patriarchal prism.

“A woman would turn out to her parental abode for any good or bad reasons and some times she would even prefer to stay there for any period of her choice with an understanding with her parental home inmates. A choice and will of a woman to exercise residential choice at her natal home should not be viewed through patriarchal prism in order to deny her the residential status there,” the court said.

Noting that Mayakannan had filed the plea with his own adverse notions about he entitlement of residential status of Saranya at her parents’ house, the court noted that the plea was without any materials and dismissed the plea.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.P.Suresh Babu

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.G.Nanmaran (for R1 & R2) Special Government Pleader Mr.C.Prakasam (for R3)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 359

Case Title: G.Mayakannan v. The District Collector

Case No: W.P. No.2456 of 2021