Begin typing your search...

"It cannot be presumed women disowned natal rights after marriage", says MHC

The petitioner contended that in 2019 Block Development Officer of Jayankondam village panchayat appointed a noneligible candidate B Saranya as panchayat secretary

It cannot be presumed women disowned natal rights after marriage, says MHC
X

Madras High Court

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court (MHC) has observed that it cannot be presumed that a married woman disowned her residential rights at her parent's house after marriage and dismissed a petition challenging the employment of a married woman in the post of village panchayat secretary as she moved to her husband's residence.

To get a ration card after marriage, the woman's name would have been deleted from her parent's ration card, but that alone it can not be said that she had severed her ties with her parent's place, wrote Justice R N Manjula. "A choice and will of a woman to exercise residential choice at her natal home should not be viewed through a patriarchal prism in order to deny her the residential status there", read the judgment.

A petitioner G Mayakannan from Jayankondam, Bhuvanagiri Taluk moved the Madras High Court (MHC) challenging the appointment of a married woman in the post of village panchayat secretary, Jayankondam, Mel Bhuvanagiri Taluk on the ground of forgery and misrepresentation.

The petitioner contended that in 2019 Block Development Officer of Jayankondam village panchayat appointed a noneligible candidate B Saranya as panchayat secretary.

Petitioner contended that he is the senior in the employment exchange registration roster and being the local resident that post should be awarded to him instead of appointing Saranya as she was married and moved to her husband's residence. The petitioner submitted that the condition for appointment in the post is that the candidate should have to be a local resident and residence certificates have to be submitted in this regard. As this condition is not satisfied her appointment should have to be quashed, contended the petitioner.

The judge dismissed the petition and observed that the respondent (Saranya) has got her roots at Jayankondam and that is not denied by the petitioner. While so, he cannot perceive the respondent as a stranger to her natal family, wrote the judgment.

"In today's world, men and women go to several places for the sake of education or occupation but still consider their native place as their permanent residence", read the judgment. If a married woman chooses to live between her natal home and marital home on account of her employment, business, or otherwise nothing can prevent her to exercise her option, observed the judge.

DTNEXT Bureau
Next Story