SSK/ 1 WP.9496.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9496 OF 2010 Ravi @ Ravindra Gajanan Sonawane & Anr.. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Hiten S. Venegavkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 8TH APRIL, 2011. P.C.: Mr. Venegavkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, on instructions, makes a statement that he is not pressing this petition on behalf of the petitioner no.1. The statement is accepted. In view of the statement, the reliefs claimed in this petition are restricted to the petitioner no.2 only. 2. The petition pertains to disqualification proceedings under Section 16(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (in short “the said Act”). The petitioner no.2 is the wife of petitioner no.1. The petitioner no.2 SSK/ 2 WP.9496.10 was elected as Member on 25th April, 2010 in the General Election to the Village Panchayat – Lakhamapur. Subsequently on 12th May, 2010, the petitioner no.2 was elected as Sarpanch. The 3rd respondent contended that the petitioner no. 2 is not entitled to continue as Member/Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat, Village Lakhamapur, as she was disqualified to be elected as Member of the Grampanchayat in view of the provisions of Section 14-1 (J-1) viz. she has begotten more than two children after the cut-off date i.e. 12th September, 2001. The 3rd respondent filed an application to that effect under the provisions of Section 16(2) of the said Act before the Additional Collector, Nashik. 3. The learned Additional Collector, Nashik after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner no.2 and the respondent no.3 and, after going through the documents on record, held that the petitioner no.2 has more than two children on the date of election and, therefore, she was held to be disqualified to hold the post of Member/Sarpanch of the said Village Panchayat- Lakhamapur. This order is confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 4. The respondent no.3 along with his application annexed the certified copies of the birth extract from the Registry of Birth and Death maintained by the Deputy Registrar, Deolali, District-Nashik. The particulars SSK/ 3 WP.9496.10 of the said birth extract are as follows. Sr. No. Name of the Child Sex Date of Birth Mother’s Name Father’s Name Registration Date 1 Jui Female 21.02.2001 Varsha Ravindra Gajanan Sonawane 22.03.2001 2 Pradnya Female 07.11.2002 Varsha Ravindra Gajanan Sonawane 23.12.2002 3 Sahil Male 17.03.2004 Varsha Ravindra Gajanan Sonawane 07.05.2004 Perusal of the above chart shows that the petitioner no.2 has given birth to three children and out of these three children, two children are begotten after the cut-off date i.e. 12th September, 2001. The petitioner no. 2 contends that prior to her marriage to petitioner no.1, the petitioner no.1 had married another lady and her name was also “Varsha alias Poonam”. She submitted that there was divorce between the petitioner no.1 and the said Varsha alias Poonam in the year 2001 and, thereafter she married petitioner no.1 and after the marriage, she has begotten only two children viz. Pradnya and Sahil. In short, she claims that the child-Jui was begotten to petitioner no.1 and his wife “Varsha alias Poonam” and, therefore, she is not disqualified under the provisions of Clause J-1 of Section 14(1) of the said Act. She also submitted that the 2nd child by name-Pradnya was given in adoption on 22nd May, 2008. So far as alleged adoption of the 2nd child is concerned, it is now settled principle that adoption after the cut-off date so SSK/ 4 WP.9496.10 as to reduce the strength of the children will not save the person’s disqualification under the provisions of Section 14-1 (J-1) of the said Act. Admittedly in the present case, the 2nd child of the petitioner was alleged to have given in adoption in the year 2008. Obviously that does not save her from disqualification. 5. So far as the petitioner no.2’s contention regarding the 1st child – Jui is concerned, she claims that she is the daughter of the petitioner no.1 and one “Varsha alias Poonam”. It is further alleged that Varsha alias Poonam was subsequently married to one Prithviraj Vasant Pawar. The said Prithviraj Vasant Pawar is the real brother of the petitioner no.2. The alleged divorce deed between the petitioner no.1 and Varsha alias Poonam was witness by the father and real brother of the petitioner no.1. The affidavits filed by the petitioner no.2 in respect of alleged divorce deed between the petitioner no.1 and the said Varsha alias Poonam are prepared in the year 2010. Taking all the dates and relationship between the parties into consideration, it is clear that the petitioner no.2 and petitioner no.1 in order to save disqualification created false documents. Similar finding is recorded by the Lower Courts. Had the child-Jui born to the petitioner no.1 from his earlier wife, then, the name of her mother in the extract of birth and death would have been “Varsha @ Poonam”. But, that is not so and the name of Jui’s mother is shown as only “Varsha”. SSK/ 5 WP.9496.10 6. Taking overall circumstances into consideration, I agree with the finding recorded by both the Lower Courts that the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 have given birth to three children, out of which, two are begotten subsequent to the cut-off date i.e. 12th September, 2001. I am, therefore, of the opinion, that the petitioner no.2 was not eligible to be elected as Member of the said Village Panchayat and she has been correctly disqualified to hold the said post. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)