A married woman does not automatically cease to be an 'ordinarily resident' of her native village for voting purposes; marriage does not mandate the abandonment of her parental residence, and authorities must assess the individual's intention and actual ties rather than applying a blanket presumption based on marital status.

Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1950 - Section 20, 22 - Electoral roll - Deletion of names - Ordinary residence - Determination of - The court held that marriage of a woman does not automatically result in the abandonment of her native place as her permanent residence - The authorities should consider the intention to reside and the availability of physical space at the parent's house - Temporary absence for marital reasons does not disqualify a citizen from being an 'ordinary resident' of their native village. (Paras 7, 8, 10)

(B) Appeals - Alternative remedy - The court held that despite the availability of an appellate remedy, if the election process is imminent and the remedy may not be efficacious to protect the voting rights, the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction. (Para 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners are women whose names were deleted from the electoral rolls of their native village by the election authorities based on allegations that they were no longer ordinary residents due to their marriage and living in their matrimonial homes. The petitioners challenged this action, contending that they continue to maintain their residence and voter registration in their native village.

Findings of Court:
The court found the deletion to be arbitrary, noting that the petitioners had previously contested and served as elected representatives and continued to possess documentation establishing their residency in the village. The court emphasized that the election authorities failed to correctly interpret the concept of 'ordinary residence' in the context of married women.

Issues: Whether the electoral registration officer was justified in deleting the names of the petitioners solely on the ground of their marriage and relocation to their matrimonial homes.

Ratio Decidendi: Marriage does not sever a woman's ties with her parental residence, and she retains the right to be registered as a voter at her native place if she intends to maintain it as her permanent residence, notwithstanding temporary absence.

Result: Writ Petitions allowed; impugned orders set aside and respondents directed to restore the petitioners' names in the electoral roll.

Table of Content
1. petitioners contest the summary deletion of their electoral rights due to alleged non-residence post-marriage. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. debate on whether voting is a fundamental vs. statutory right and interpretation of ordinary residency. (Para 5 , 6)
3. marriage does not automatically negate an individual's residential status in their native village. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. high court maintains jurisdiction despite alternative remedies when time-sensitive election rights are involved. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI

WRIT PETITION NO.31471 OF 2025,

WRIT PETITION NO.32662 OF 2025,

WRIT PETITION NO.32923 OF 2025,

WRIT PETITION NO.32926 OF 2025

AND

WRIT PETITION NO.32927 OF 2025

COMMON ORDER

In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of respondent No.6 in deleting their names from the electoral roll of Madanapuram Village, Chintapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District without any reason, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents to restore the petitioners’ names in the electoral roll of the said village and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of these Writ Petitions are that the petitioners are all women and allegedly residents of Madanapuram Village, Chintapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District and their votes were recorded in the said village. The voter Ids of the petitioners are as follows:

(i) W.P.No.31471 of 2025:

Name of the Petitioner: Uduthala Akhila

Voter ID No. : TIC1269265

Ward No. : 3

(ii) W.P.No.32662 of 2025:

Name of the Petitioner: Poli Divya

Voter ID No. : TIC2178341

Ward No. : 3

(iii) W.P.No.32923 of 2025:

Name of the Petitioner: Derangula Prasanna Lakshmi

Voter ID No. : TIC2081198

Ward No. : 6

(iv) W.P.No.32926 of 2025:

Name of the Petitioner: Guddeti Sivaleela

Voter ID No. : TIC1693860

Ward No. : 6

(v) W.P.No.32927 of 2025:

Name of the Petitioner: Guddeti Shirisha

Voter ID No. : TIC2081164

Ward No. : 6

On the basis of the said voter IDs, the petitioner in W.P.No.31471 of 2025 has also contested as Sarpanch and served as Sarpanch in the said village for the term 2019-2024. It is submitted that the petitioner was in public service for several years and during her tenure as a Sarpanch, the petitioner executed various developmental works including the construction of roads, graveyards and other essential infrastructure. It is submitted that the petitioner got married in the year 2022 to one Sri Sai Koshore Yadav and at the time of her marriage, the petitioner was gifted with agricultural property in Survey No.3/AA/2 of Madanapuram Village by her father and the petitioner claims to be residing in the said village with her husband and thereby cultivating the said land. It is also stated that the petitioner’s husband also runs a hotel business under the name and style of ‘B Village Hotel’ at Chintapalli Mandal. Similarly, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.32662, 32923, 32926 and 32927 of 2025 also claim to be residing in this village only in spite of their marriage to persons from other places.

3. It is submitted that out of political vendetta, one Jangiti Narasimha filed a false and frivolous complaint on 29.07.2025 before the election authorities alleging that the petitioners in these Writ Petitions and others were not residing in the subject village and requested deletion of their names from the voters list. Thereafter, respondent No.6 issued a notice bearing File No.B/04/2025 dt.28.08.2025 calling the explanation of the petitioners as to why their names should not be deleted from the voters list. The petitioners claim to have appeared personally on 06.09.2025 and submitted their written explanations affirming their continuous residence in Madanapuram Village and also submitted a representation to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chintapalli along with supporting documents and the Mandal Revenue Officer also recorded their statements on 23.09.2025. It is alleged that without taking the same into considera

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 24629

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADT. Madhavi Devi, JUduthala Akhila – AppellantVersusState of Telangana – RespondentWRIT PETITION Nos.31471, 32662, 32923, 32926 and 32927 of 2025

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. Madhavi Devi, J
Uduthala Akhila – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION Nos.31471, 32662, 32923, 32926 and 32927 of 2025