SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 35829

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



A married woman does not automatically lose her residential status at her natal home for electoral purposes; her name cannot be deleted from the electoral roll of her native constituency if she retains the intention to reside there and possesses valid proof of residency.

Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1950 - Sections 15-20, 22, 24 - Election Laws - Electoral Rolls - Deletion of names - Ordinary residence - Married women - Petitioner's names deleted from electoral roll of natal village alleging non-residence due to marriage - Court held that marriage does not automatically result in losing residential status at parental home - Right to vote is subject to ordinary residence - Documents confirming address at parental village and intent to reside there sufficient - Impugned orders set aside as arbitrary - Right to vote in natal constituency upheld (Paras 7, 8, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, married women, had their names deleted from the electoral roll of their natal village (Madanapuram) following a complaint by a third party alleging they did not reside there post-marriage. Despite having provided explanations and proof of residence to the Election Officer, the names were removed. Petitioners filed these writ petitions to challenge the deletion.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the Election Officer failed to properly consider the petitioners' intent and ties to their natal village. Relying on judicial precedents, the court noted that marriage does not force a woman to abandon her native residence. The deletion was deemed arbitrary, and the Election Officer was ordered to restore the petitioners' names.

Issues: Whether the deletion of the petitioners' names from the electoral roll solely on the ground of their marriage and relocation to matrimonial homes is sustainable under the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

Ratio Decidendi: A married woman cannot be presumed to have abandoned her residential rights at her parents' house solely due to marriage. If the woman maintains an intention to reside there and possesses documentation confirming her identity/residency in the constituency, her name cannot be arbitrarily deleted from the electoral roll.

Result: Writ Petitions allowed.

Table of Content
1. overview of facts leading to deletion of names from electoral rolls. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. contentions regarding the right to vote and definition of ordinary residence. (Para 5 , 6)
3. judicial interpretation of residency rights after marriage. (Para 7 , 8 , 10)
4. court's power to intervene despite alternative legal remedies. (Para 9 , 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 consideration, respondent No.6 has arbitrarily deleted the names of the petitioners from the electoral roll of the subject village. It is stated that on verifying the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top