Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

SLC Reads

Two- Child Rule: Maharashtra Councillor Attempts To Disown Third Child-SC refuses to accept

A special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court in the case of Antina Ramdas Magar vs Bhagalaxmi Prakash Mahanta and Ors. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court rejecting the plea of Municipal Councilor from Maharashtra who attempted to escape disqualification for violating the two-child rule by trying to disown the third child.

Socio Legal Corp

By Shashank

A special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court in the case of Antina Ramdas Magar vs Bhagalaxmi Prakash Mahanta and Ors. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court rejecting the plea of Municipal Councilor from Maharashtra who attempted to escape disqualification for violating the two-child rule by trying to disown the third child.

Facts: A woman named Anita Ramdas Magar contested the Solapur Municipal Council in 2017. Her nomination was challenged on the ground that a third child was born to her after September 1, 2001, the date on which the Maharashtra government barred candidates from contesting local bodies election who have more than two-child.

Arguments made by the petitioner: The third child was born to another family that is her husband’s brother and his wife. Corrections were made in the birth certificate of the child was referred to argue that they were not the parents of the child.

Findings of Trail and Bombay High Court:

  1. Anita Magar had given birth to a daughter in 2004, therefore the court set aside her election holding her disqualified as per section 10(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Muncipal Corporation Act, 1949.
  2. Initially, the Birth Certificate showed the petitioner as parents, later it was changed after 8-years, in 2012.
  3. The important information given from the hospital in 2004 depicted the petitioner and her husband as the parents.
  4. The school record of the child also reveals the parental identity of the petitioner. There was evidence to show that they acted as parents, took part in school related affairs.

The Bombay High court upheld the Trial court’s order refusing to accept the arguments of the petitioner. The High court observed, that there is enough evidence on record to show that the girl was the child born to the petitioner.

Comments
Advertisement

Related Posts

SLC Reads

Maharashtra high court bench denied anticipatory bail to the chairman of an international school, booked for allegedly abetting the suicide of a class 10...

SLC Reads

The Bombay High Court in the case of Ajinkya Mohan Udane v. Registrar General, Bombay High Court has made the use of A4 size...