IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.34106 of 2025

28.11.2025 Between:

Dawle Vishal & another …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana Represented by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Bhavan, Secratariat, Hyderabad & three others …Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.4 in not issuing Domicile and residential Certificate in given format in favour of 2^nd petitioner for employment purpose and consequently, direct the 4^th respondent to issue the domicile and residential certificate in favour of the

2nd petitioner.

2. Heard Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for respondent No.1 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 1st Petitioner, belongs to BC-B community is resident of Yenka Village, married the 2^nd Petitioner, originally from Maharashtra, on 05.05.2024, and their marriage was registered on 22.07.2024. After marriage, the 2^nd Petitioner changed her name from Patange Nikita Prabhakar to Dawle Nikita, updated her Aadhar and residential records to Telangana, and obtained a Telangana State Election Identity Card. She applied for the Constable (GD) post under the 2025 SSC notification, cleared the written and physical tests, and was called for Document Verification and Medical Examination on 13.11.2025, but lacked only the Domicile/Residential Certificate in the SSC-prescribed format. Although the 4^th Respondent issued this certificate to the 1^st Petitioner, it refused to issue it to the 2nd Petitioner despite the 3rd Respondent’s endorsement. He further stated that Under Section 15 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a woman acquires her husband's domicile upon marriage and several High Courts in Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand (Asha Devi; Madhu Rana; Jyoti Bala cases) have held the same and directed issuance of domicile certificates.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Asha Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan,, 2000 DNJ (Raj.) 181 wherein it is stated as follows:

“The petitioner who originally belongs to Haryana was married to a domicile

resident of Rajasthan. As per Indian culture, it goes without saying that the wife is considered to be the domicile of the area where she is married and stays with her husband. The respondents had not applied their mind to this aspect and have mechanically rejected the application of the petitioner. The certificate of residence of a married woman to be a resident of Rajasthan where her husband is staying or residing is to be considered as a domicile certificate of such woman.”

5. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue placed on record written instructions dated 10.11.2025 from Respondent No.4/The Tahsildar, Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad District, stating that 2nd Petitioner’s Domicile Certificate request was rejected as she completed her Secondary School Certificate in Maharashtra in March 2020. It was also noted that she applied for Constable (GD) in CAPFs using her father’s name “Patange Prabhakar” and not her husband’s name. It is also submitted that, vide letter dated 17.10.2025, the District Administration informed the difficulties faced by Tahsildars in issuing Domicile, Nativity, and Religion Certificates for Army and other Central Government job notifications, with no guidelines issued. Therefore, the petitioner’s request cannot be considered and may be dismissed at the admission stage.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel and a perusal of the record, it is evident that the 2^nd Petitioner, being lawfully married to the 1^st Petitioner, has acquired her husband’s domicile under Section 15 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the 2^nd petition