Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.
Surekha Mukund Dabhade – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Others – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7379 of 2019
Decided On : 21-06-2019
Fraud - Disqualification for having more than two children - S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath and others (1994) 1 SCC 1, Kishore Samrite v/s State of Uttar Pradesh (2013) 2 SCC 398, Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and another vs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and others (2017) 5 SCC 496 - The court found the petitioner and her husband guilty of playing a fraud on the court and statutory authorities by blatantly lying and disowning their child to avoid disqualification for having more than two children. The court dismissed the petition, imposed a cost of Rs.1 lac, and disqualified the petitioner and her husband from contesting any election that attracts a disqualification for having more than two children.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the petitioner, Surekha, claiming to be the first wife of Mukund Dabhade and having three children prior to 13.09.2000. Mukund Dabhade claimed to have a second wife, Dipali @ Surekha, who disappeared after giving birth to a son. The petitioner was disqualified for having more than two children and filed multiple appeals and review applications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner and her husband guilty of playing a fraud on the court and statutory authorities by blatantly lying and disowning their child to avoid disqualification for having more than two children.
Issues: The issues involved the disqualification of the petitioner for having more than two children, the existence of a second wife, and the fraudulent actions of the petitioner and her husband.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgments in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath and others, Kishore Samrite v/s State of Uttar Pradesh, and Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and another vs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and others to establish that the petitioner and her husband's actions amounted to playing a fraud on the court and statutory authorities.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, imposed a cost of Rs.1 lac, and disqualified the petitioner and her husband from contesting any election that attracts a disqualification for having more than two children.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra V Ghuge, J.
I have heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4.
2. This case has brought up a mysterious second wife of Mukund Dabhade, husband of the petitioner, who disappeared forever after giving birth to a son. This case also indicates the level to which a person can stoop low for fulfilling political aspirations.
3. The submissions of the petitioner can be summarized as under :-
(a) The petitioner (Surekha) is the first wife of Mukund Dabhade and they have three children prior to 13.09.2000.
(b) Mukund Dabhade claims to have a second wife by name Dipali @ Surekha and she has one child by name Aniket born out of the said relationship. The petitioner asserts this position.
(c) Dipali @ Surekha suddenly disappeared when Aniket was 1 and 1/2 years old, after being born in 2006.
(d) Dipali @ Surekha is untraceable and Mukund has not lodged any missing complaint with any police station stating that she is missing.
(e) The petitioner was earlier disqualified by the order of the District Collector dated 21.08.2017 for having more than two children and the third child having been born after 13.09.2000.
(f) The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed the same by order dated 21.08.2017.
(g) The petitioner then approached this Court in Writ Petition No.1412/2018 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn.
(h) The petitioner then approached the Additional Divisional Commissioner by filing a review application and the same was allowed thereby, remitting the matter to the Additional Collector for reconsideration.
(i) It is by the impugned order dated 19.11.2018 that the District Collector has concluded that there is no such human being by name Dipali @ Surekha and the petitioner could not establish that there are two ladies by name Surekha as two wives of Mukund.
(j) The petitioner then approached the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad belatedly and by the impugned order, the Additional Divisional Commissioner has declined to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner.
4. The learned AGP submits that the petitioner has created a make believe picture of the second wife of Mukund terming her to be Dipali @ Surekh. It is conspicuous that Mukund has not lodged any police complaint as regards the purported missing of Dipali @ Surekha.
5. I find the entire situation to be quite unusual. If the second wife (not a legitimate wife) after giving birth to the son Aniket goes missing, it is impossible that anyone from her parental side would not have filed any complaint about the daughter going missing. I, therefore, called upon the learned advocate for the petitioner to take instructions as to whether, the petitioner would cooperate in an investigation, which I would direct for finding out the truth and for locating the purported Dipali @ Surekha.
6. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits, on instructions from Mukund present in the court, that the petitioner desires to withdraw this writ petition and will withdraw the pending proceedings. She does not want any steps to be taken to search for his (Mukund's) second wife.
7. I found this approach to be suspicious. Hence, I directed that the printout of the earlier order dated 09.03.2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1412/2018, which was the earlier round of litigation referred to herein above, to be placed before me. Upon going through the earlier order passed, I found that this court had heard the same petitioner and had recorded in the order dated 23.02.2018 as under :-
"1. Learned AGP appears for 1 to 3. The petitioner seeks leave to delete respondent No.4. Deletion granted. Mr. Wagh, learned Advocate appears for respondent No.5.
2. The petitioner/elected representative states on an affidavit that though she has 3 children namely Abhijeet Mukund, Vishakha Mukund and Sneha Mukund born prior to 2001, Aniket Mukund born on 24/07/2006 is not her biological child
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
