Caste Of A Person Is Determined By Birth, Married Women Acquire Caste Status Of Husband In Rare Circumstances: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by one Archana M G, a Grama Panchayat Member, challenging the order of the Civil court which unseated her on the ground of lack of social status as a Scheduled Tribe member.A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said,"There is no dispute as to petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe, by birth, although she claims to...
The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by one Archana M G, a Grama Panchayat Member, challenging the order of the Civil court which unseated her on the ground of lack of social status as a Scheduled Tribe member.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said,
"There is no dispute as to petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe, by birth, although she claims to have acquired the said social status by marriage to a member of scheduled tribe. Ordinarily, caste is determined by birth and caste of a person follows that of his/her father."
It added, "That is why Mahabharath states: "daivaa yatnam kule janma, purushaa yatnam pourusham".
The petitioner had challenged the order dated February 1, passed by the Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Shivamogga in Election petition filed by the 1st respondent- Smt. Abhilasha on the ground of lack of social status.
She claimed to have acquired the said social status by marriage to a member of scheduled tribe.
The court noted, "True it is, in rare circumstances a lady acquires the caste status of her husband provided she pleads and proves her admission to the community of the husband by social acceptance. However, that is not the case put forth by the petitioner in the court below in her objections to the election petition. Such a plea now being taken in the writ petition is only an afterthought and cannot be accepted as the pleadings in the election petition."
The court also junked the contention of the petitioner that no procedure was adopted by the Election Tribunal and no fair opportunity was given to her. To which the court said, "This is difficult to countenance inasmuch as petitioner herself had appeared in the matter and sought time for engaging another advocate, after the first one retired from the case. Thrice adjournment was granted and she concurrently remained absent. Even here no plausible explanation is offered for such a lapse."
Further it opined, "Petitioner is an elected representative of people and not a peasant or a labourer who can seek leniency in matters like this. This apart, learned AGA is more than justified in pointing out that in matters pertaining to election, equity and common law principles have no place vide Jyothi Basu Vs. Debi Prasad Ghosal, AIR 1982 SC 983."
Case Title: Archana M G v. Abhilasha
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 3399 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 84
Date of Order: 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
Appearance: Advocate VENKATESHA T S for petitioner
Advocate B S PRASAD, FOR C/R1;
Advocate NITHYANANDA R R, FOR R5 & R6;
Advocate VAISHALI HEGDE, FOR R7;