whether by virtue of marriage, a person would become a member of the Scheduled Caste - No - 2015 A.P. (2014) MSK LAW REPORTS

whether by virtue of marriage, a person would become a member of the Scheduled Caste - No - 2015 A.P. (2014) MSK LAW REPORTS

 It is the case of
the writ petitioner that though in her school record maintained by
Government DVHSS School, Vechoor, Kottayam District, Kerala   
her caste was recorded as Roman Catholic, since she has been  
continuously staying at Udimidi Village, and also married a
scheduled caste person and was also undergoing all the ordeals
attached to the scheduled caste community, the said community  
has treated, considered and accepted her as one amongst them. 
 It is
further contended that on her marriage, she becomes part of the
family of her husband and accordingly becomes a member of the 
same caste, to which her husband belongs. Since there was never 
any dispute that her husband belongs to the Scheduled caste
community, the petitioner cannot be treated any differently. Strong
reliance was placed in support of the above plea upon the
judgment of Supreme Court rendered in Vassamma Paul v.  
Cochin University and others =
whether by virtue of
marriage, a person would become a member of the Scheduled   
Caste has fallen for consideration before the Supreme Court, on
more than once occasion. in Vassamma Paul v.  Cochin University and others .
The Supreme Court in Rameshbhai has reviewed several earlier judgments and analysed the ratio of Valsamma Paulcase in that regard.
in an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal
and a non-tribal the woman must in all cases take her caste
from the husband, as a rule of Constitutional Law is a
proposition, the correctness of which is not free from doubt.
And in any case it is not the ratio of the Valsamma decision
and does not make a binding precedent.
        It is also clear to us that taking it to the next logical step
and to hold that the off-spring of such a marriage would in all
cases get his/her caste from the father is bound to give rise to
serious problems. Take for instance the case of a tribal woman
getting married to a forward caste man and who is widowed or
is abandoned by the husband shortly after marriage. She goes
back to her people and the community carrying with her an
infant or may be a child still in the womb.
The child is born in
the community from where her mother came and to which she
went back and is brought up as the member of that
community suffering all the deprivations, humiliations,
disabilities and handicaps as a member of the community. Can
it still be said that the child would have the caste of his father
and, therefore, not entitled to any benefits, privileges or
protections sanctioned by the Constitution.
      If the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court has been
understood in a particular manner, by a subsequent judgment of
the Supreme Court, and the earlier judgment was explained, that
is only the manner in which the earlier Judgment of the Supreme
Court is liable to be understood.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)