Reservation benefit

@Querist,

Yes.

Thanks,

Regards,

Your wife can claim only benifit of OBC not of SC, as she has grown up as OBC in society before marriage.

1. I differ to opinion of Mr. Sumitra. I endorse opinion of ld. brother Arvind.

Reasoning:

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika Vs. State of Gujarat & Others  (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 654 of 2012 - Decided on January 18, 2012) was pleased to endorse the above view of the Full Bench Judgment of the Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court was also pleased to observe that the view   expressed earlier by the Supreme Court in ref.: Valsamma judgment [AIR 1996 SC 1011] that 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.

The question if I understood correctly here is:- Whether a woman marrying a SC citizen becomes entitled to claim reservation under the SC quota? 

The clear answer is: No

Explanation: 'claim reservation' here is similar to asking 'count in as SC' which is what if I understood correctly the queriest here asked us. If not, then anyone can correct me on para 2 ;-(

I differ to the opinion given above by the reason of incompleteness of the facts that were opined in the case of

Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika vs. State of Gujrat and ors.

In this case, The honorable Supereme court,while anaylzing various logic given by the different high courts,endorsed the decision given by the Bombay high court  in the case of  'Rajendra Srisvastva vs. State of Maharastra' which stated

When a woman born in a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe marries to a person belonging to a forward caste, her caste by birth does not change by virtue of the marriage.

Further,the Hon'ble Supreme court observed while analysing differect aspects,says in the para 34 as follow-

34. We fully endorse the view taken by the Bombay High Court and we feel that in the facts of the case that was the only correct view.

Further Hon'ble court observed

35. In light of the discussion made above it is clear that the view expressed in Paragraph 31 of the Valsamma judgment that 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.

Here in para 34 and 35,the points to be emphasized are 'In the facts of the case that was only correct view' and 'it is not the ratio of the Valsamma decision and does not make a binding precedent.' respectively.

Analyzing these two point in context of the case we can observe that

"It didn't mean a genralization in this regard rather the the case is to to seen in perspective of the circumstances. This view was held to protect the interest of the woman in the question and the facts in the case of  'Rajendra Srivastava vs. State of Maharastra'.In particular,the hon'ble court asserted 'The constitution of India give only one view to our mind 'to give Protection to backward caste, notwithstanding anything contained in other clauses which included Art 14,15,and 16 of COI.' ,which was the main issue raised in the case of 'Rajendra Srivastava vs. State of Maharastra'."

The same theory of constitution applied in the raised issue in the case of 'Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika vs. State of Gujrat and ors.which goes like

43. In view of the analysis of the earlier decisions and the discussion made above, the legal position that seems to emerge is that in an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal the determination of the caste of the offspring is essentially a question of fact to be decided on the basis of the facts adduced in each case. The determination of caste of a person born of an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal cannot be determined in complete disregard of attending facts of the case. In an intercaste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal there may be a presumption that the child has the caste of the father. This presumption may be stronger in the case where in the inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal the husband belongs to a forward caste. But by no means the presumption is conclusive or irrebuttable and it is open to the child of such marriage to lead evidence to show that he/she was brought up by the mother who belonged to the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe. By virtue of being the son of a forward caste father he did not have any advantageous start in life but on the contrary suffered the deprivations, indignities, humilities and handicaps like any other member of the community to which his/her mother belonged. Additionally, that he was always treated a member of the community to which her mother belonged not only by that community but by people outside the community as well.father. This presumption may be stronger in the case where in the inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal the husband belongs to a forward caste. But by no means the presumption is conclusive or irrebuttable and it is open to the child of such marriage to lead evidence to show that he/she was brought up by the mother who belonged to the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe. By virtue of being the son of a forward caste father he did not have any advantageous start in life but on the contrary suffered the deprivations, indignities,humilities and handicaps like any other member of the community to which his/her mother belonged. Additionally, that he was always treated a member of the community to which her mother belonged not only by that community but by people outside the community as well.

Thus,in view of this analysis we can conclude that 'YES' is the answer to the question raised in the query.

Thanks,

Regards,