Category doubt

Anyone pls

In Hindu law, a husband and wife are considered as one. After the marriage, a wife is considered as half of the husband and she is a sapinda. Therefore, when the wife becomes part of the husband and husband being the head of the family, the children born between them would partake the community of the husband in the normal circumstances. However, the said children can claim the status of their mother provided that the relevant Government order allows such a claim on the satisfaction of the condition mentioned therein that they have been following the community of the mother. Of course, the question as to whether the children are following the community of the mother or father depends upon the facts of each case to be enquired and decided by the competent authority. 

In the judgment reported in (1996) 3 SCC 545 in the case of VALSAMMA PAUL (MRS) Vs. COCHIN UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-

"16.The Constitution seeks to establish a secular socialist democratic republic in which every citizen has equality of status and an opportunity, to promote among the people dignity of the individual, unity and integrity of the nation transcending them from caste, sectional, religious barriers fostering fraternity among them in an integrated Bharat. The emphapsis, therefore, is on a citizen to improve excellence and equal status and dignity of person. With the advancement of human rights and constitutional philosophy of social and economic democracy in a democratic polity to all the citizens on equal footing, secularism has been held to be one of the basic features of the Constitution (Vide: S.R.Bommai v. Union of India) and egalitarian social order is its foundation. Unless free mobility of the people is allowed transcending sectional, caste, religious or regional barriers, establishment of secular socialist order becomes difficult. In state of Karnataka v. Appa balu Ingale this Court has held in para 34 that judiciary acts as a bastion of the freedom and of the rights of the people. The Judges are participants in the living stream of national life, steering the law between the dangers of rigidity and formlessness in the seamless web of life. A Judge must be a juris endowed with the legislator's wisdom, historian's search for truth, prophet's vision, capacity to respond to the needs of the present, resilience to cope with the demands of the future to decide objectively, disengaging himself/herself from every personal influence or predilections. The Judges should adapt purposive interpretation of the dynamic concepts under the Constitution and the Act with its interpretative armoury to articulate the felt necessities of the time. Social legislation is not a document for fastidious dialects but means of ordering the life of the people. To construe law one must enter into its spirit, its setting and history. Law should be capable to expand freedom of the people and the legal order can weigh with utmost equal care to provide the underpinning of the highly inequitable social order. Judicial review must be exercised with insight into social values to supplement the changing social needs. The existing social inequalities or imbalances are required to be removed readjusting the social order through rule of law. In that case, the need for protection of right to take water, under the Civil Rights Protection Act, and the necessity to uphold the constitutional mandate of abolishing untouchability and its practice in any form was emphasised. 

17. Usha M.Apte in her The Sacrament of Marriage in Hindu Society from Vedic period to Dharmasastras (1978 Ed.) stated at p.13 that inter-caste marriages were prevalent in the period of Rig Veda. She quoted thus: "Savasva, Kaksivat and Vimada all belonged to Brahmin families but they married daughters of the kings i.e. Ksatriya girls. Even Cyavana married a Ksatriya girl. On the other hand Sasvati i.e. daughter of the saga Angirasa, was married to king Asanga. The king Svanaya Bhavayavya i.e. brother-in-law of Kaksivat was married to Brahmani wife of Angirasa (cf VIII 1.34). Even marriage of Yayati and Devayani (X.63.1) is of the same type i.e. Ksatriya male marrying a Brahmani." From the Brahmanas and the Upanishads, she also quoted at p.41 thus: "Mahidasa Aitareya was the seer of the Aitareya Brahmana. He was the son of Itara i.e. a mother who was other than a Brahmani. The word can be interpreted also as 'son of Itara'. In this case he would be a child born of extramarital connections." 

18. At p.189 she stated that although the Sastrakaras accept the inter-caste marriage of anuloma type, certainly they did not approve of it. To them such marriages led to intermixture of Varnas which could lead to social chaos. She pleaded for simplification of the marriage rights and avoidance of waste of money and material. 

19. In Hindu Law of Marriage and Stridhana by G.Banerjee, 2nd Edn., 1896, it has been stated at pp.68-69 that by inter-caste marriages amongh Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras, which were allowed in Vedic period, there arose a number of mixed classes, which have been treated in the 10th Chapter of Manu; and further, by a division of the Sudras according to their occupations, there arose a number of sub-castes; such being the nature and origin of caste, the prohibition of inter-marriage applies only with reference to the foru primary castes, and was inapplicable to sub-division of the Sudra caste. Quoting from Pandaiya Telaver v. Puli Telaveri from the judgment of Scotland, C.J., it was concluded that the general law applicable to all classes or tribes does not seem opposed to marriage between individuals of different sects or divisions of the same clas or tribe, and even as regards the marriage between individuals of a different class or tribe, the law appears to be no more than directory. Although it recommends and inculates a marriage with a woman of equal class as a preferable descripttion, yet the marriage of a man with a woman of a lower class or tribe than himself appears not to be an invalid marriage, rendering the issue illegitimate.

20. Dr Paras Diwan in his 2nd Edn. Of Law of Marriage and Divorce stated at p.75 that in inter-sect marriages in anuloma form, a male of superior caste marries a female of inferior caste; and in pratiloma marriage a male of inferior caste marries a female of superior caste. During British Raj, pratiloma marriage came to be considered as invalid and obsolete but anuloma marriage was held valid. Customary inter-caste marriages were held valid. They were performed under Special Marriages Act, 1872. The Arya Marriages Validation Act, 1937 permitted performance of both anuloma and pratiloma marriages under the auspices of the Arya Samaj. Inter-sub-caste marriages were validated under the Hindu Marriage (Removal of disabilities) Act, 1946. The Hindu Marriage Validity Act, 1949 permitted performance of both forms of inter-caste marriages. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 inter-caste marriages among all castes are valid as under the Act marriage between any two Hindus is a valid one. At p.76 he stated that under muslim law intersect marriages between Muslims belonging to different sects or schools are vlaid. The Christian Marriage Act permitted marriage between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Among Parsis there are no sects or denominations. It would thus be clear that in Hindu social order, the prohibition of inter-caste couple resulted in shunning the inter-caste marriages as a social mobility and resulted in rigidity in social structure. The Hindu Marriage Act has done away with that rigidity and made valid the inter-caste marriages. Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act introduced an amendment in the State of Tamil Nadu providing that marriages made between any two Hindus in any form solemnised in the presence of relatives, friends or other persons in a simplified form are a valid marriage; and by statutory operation of sub-section (2), such marriages held earlier to the commencement of Hindu Marriages (Madras Amendment) Act, 1957 are to be regarded as good and valid in law, doing away with any customary practice or usages to be mandatory. The Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1957 cam into force with effect from 20.1.1968. 

21.The Constitution through its Preamble, Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles created a secular State based on the principle of equality and non-discrimination, striking a balance between the rights of the individuals and the duty and commitment of the State to establish an egalitarian social order. Dr K.M. Munshi contended on the floor of the Constituent Assemble that "We want to divorce religion from personal law, from what may be called social relations, or from the rights of parties as regards inheritance or succession. What have these things got to do with religion, I fail to understand? We are in a stage where we must unify and consolidate the nation by every means without interfering with religious practices. If, however, in the past, religious practices have been so construed as to cover the whole filed of life, we have reached a point when we must put our foot down and say that these matters are not religion, they are purely matters for secular legislation. Religion must be restricted to spheres which legitimately appertain to religion, and the rest of life must be regulated, unified and modified in such a manner that we may evolve, as early as possible, a strong and consolidated nation"

22. In the onward march of establishing an egalitarian secular social order based on equality and dignity of person, Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion or caste identitties so as to foster national identity which does not deny pluralism of Indian culture but rather to preserve it. Indian culture is a product or blend of several strains or elements derived from various sources, in spite of inconsequential variety of forms and types. There is unity of spirit informing Indian culture throughout the ages. It is this underlying unity which is one of the most remarkable everlasting and enduring feature of Indian culture that fosters unity in diversity among different populace. This generates and fosters cordial spirit and toleration that make possible the unity and continuity of Indian traditions. Therefore, it would be the endeavour of everyone to develop several identities which constantly interact and overlap, and prove a meeting point for all members of different religious communities, caste, sections, sub-sections and regions to promote rational approach to life and society and would establish a national composite and cosmopolitan culture and way of life."

Reading of the said judgment would clearly indicate that the community other than that of a father is not a matter of right. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed in para 13 of the judgment as follows;

"13. In A.S. Sailaja v. Principal, Kurnool Medical College the petitioner, daughter of A.S.Radhakrishna, an advocate of Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh, had initially appeared for Common Entrance Examination for 1984-85 for admission into Medical College but failed. For the Common Entract Examination for 1985-86 she described herself to be daughter of the natural father Radhakrishna but in the application for admission made on 13.7.1985, she claimed that she was adopted by one B.Sivaramaiah, (Shephered), a Backward Class in Andhra Pradesh and sought admission on that basis. She secured 417 marks out of 600 and when she claimed to be an OBC, but was not given admission, she filed a writ petition in the A.P.High Court for direction to the College to admit her as a Backward Class Group-D. The High Court considered the interplay of adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the protective discrimination under Article 15(4). It held that the negative endowments of men are by no means equal. The mind of children brought up in culturally, educationally and economically advanced atmosphere is accounted highly they are bound to start the race of life with advantages. It would apparently have its inevitable profound effect on the quality of the child born in that atmosphere. The children born amongs Backward Classes would not start the race of life with the same quality of life. It would, therefore, be necessary to identify the competing interest between diverse sections of society and it is the duty of the Court to strike a balance between competing claims of different interests. Citizens belonging to a group of Backward Classes identified by a appropriate authority or the commission, as a part of that class, fulfilling the traits of socially and educationally backward among that group, would alone be eligible for admission as Backward Class citizens under Article 15(4). In that event, the Court declined to go into the question whether such person is socially or educationally backward which is an exclusive function of the commission/authority appointed under Article 340 of the Constitution. But any person who would attempt, by process of law, and seek to acquire the status of such a Backward Class, should satisfy that he/she suffered the same handicaps or disadvantages due to social educational and cultural backwardness".

The said observation would make it clear that a duty is cast upon the person who claims the concession of the status of the parent who was born in Backward Class community by satisfying the authorities that he was born and brought up in a social environment which was educationally, culturally and economically placed in a disadvantageous position. 

As your father belongs to OC category you will come under OC category only. For obtaining any certificate you need to approach Thasildar of concerned jurisdictional taluk office and apply there for community certificate.

In Tamil nadu you can have the choice of selecting the case of your father or mother. You can apply for the community certificate to the VAO along with the proof of thier community. You will get it. If you dont get it send me the PM.

sir i want to contact u sir......!how shal i contact u sir???@arunagiri

plz reply me at the earliest sir.......i hav some doubts sir,,,,,,i cant post here,,,