Latest news with #RajendraGavit
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Disclosure of second marriage no ground for questioning validity of MLA's election: HC
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday rejected a petition challenging Shiv Sena MLA Rajendra Gavit's election from the Palghar assembly constituency on the grounds that he had violated rules by disclosing he had a second wife while filling his nomination form. Palghar, India - April 25, 2019: The Shiv Sena candidate Rajendra Gavit in Palghar district , India, on Thursday, April 25, 2019. (Photo by Satish Bate/Hindustan Times) (Satish Bate/HT Photo) A single-judge bench of justice Sandeep Marne ruled that the petition failed to show how Gavit's voluntary disclosure about his second marriage materially affected the election result. The bench added that the Shiv Sena leader had candidly and honestly disclosed the information relating to his second marriage, which could not be a ground for challenging his election. Sudhir Brijendra Jain, a social activist, had filed an election petition in the high court, claiming that Gavit's win in last year's Maharashtra assembly polls was void because the Shiv Sena leader disclosed he had a second wife in his poll affidavit. Jain argued that under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a second marriage, while the first is still legally valid, is illegal. Jain also contended that Gavit had violated the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, by tinkering with the format of the nomination form to add details about his second marriage. 'There is no provision for making any declaration of a second spouse. Therefore, the additional column in respect of the second spouse is in violation of the election rules,' he said. Subsequently, the court issued a summons to Gavit in January. The 57-year-old filed an application seeking the petition to be rejected, stating that merely adding a column in the form for making correct disclosures cannot be a ground for seeking the declaration of his election as void. 'There is no prohibition or restriction on any candidate from making any voluntary disclosure of information,' he added. Submitting that the declaration of a second marriage had not materially affected the election in any manner, Gavit's lawyer, advocate Nitin Gangal, urged the court to reject the petition. He also informed the court that Gavit belongs to the tribal Bhil community, which does not come under the mandate of the Hindu Marriage Act. The tribe also does not prohibit a second marriage, he claimed. 'In fact, there is a custom of polygamy in the Bhil community,' Gangal added. On this point, Jain's lawyer, senior advocate Neeta Karnik, argued that Gavit had declared his second marriage deliberately to influence voters from his community. 'The [Palghar] constituency was reserved for the ST (Scheduled Tribe) community and Mr Rajendra Gavit has largely benefited on account of this disclosure from local tribal voters,' she said. However, the court upheld Gavit's election, observing that the addition of a column in the form, which deals with details such as PAN and the status of filing income tax returns by the candidate, their spouse, their family and dependents, would neither render the nomination form defective nor amount to a violation of the provisions of the Election Rules. 'There may be cases where a candidate belonging to a particular religion, in which polygamy is not prohibited, has contracted multiple marriages. If the contention of the petitioner about impermissibility to add a column is accepted, such a candidate would never be able to contest any election,' the bench said. It further noted that there is no material averment in the memo of the petition to demonstrate falsity in Gavit's declaration. It held that the contention raised by Jain about the impermissibility to have a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage is 'purely inferential' and does not constitute making a false statement by the candidate in the nomination form.
Indian Express
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
HC upholds BJP MLA's victory, says ‘honest' disclosure of second marriage won't flout rules
Dismissing a plea against election of BJP MLA Rajendra Gavit for Palghar (ST) constituency in 2024 Assembly polls, the Bombay High Court on Monday, observed that his 'honest and candid' disclosure about his second marriage, which is permissible in his community, would not flout election rules. The HC passed an order on a petition filed by one Sudhir Brijendra Jain, a social activist from Palghar seeking a declaration that Gavit's election was void based on his declaration in Form number- 26 filed along with his nomination naming one Rupali Gavit as his 'spouse No. 2' was false. Jain had claimed that Gavit's marriage was void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which prohibits bigamy. Gavit, a member of the Tribal Bhil community, had contended that the custom of polygamy exists in the said community and second marriage is permissible. A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne noted that 'there may be cases where a candidate belonging to a particular religion, in which polygamy is not prohibited, has contracted multiple marriages.' Jain had claimed that Gavit's declaration amounted to 'corrupt practice' and his election was set aside under provision of Representation of People Act, 1951. He alleged that the declaration was made to exert undue influence on Scheduled Tribes (ST) voters in the constituency since Rupali belonged to the local tribal community. Justice Marne noted that the petitioner failed to establish that any statement made by Gavit in his affidavit in Form 26 and disclosure of second marriage by adding a column in Form-26 is false. The HC added that there were 'no pleadings (in the plea) to establish undue influence on voters with their free exercise of electoral right on account of respondent Rajendra Gavit disclosing his second marriage with Smt. Rupali Gavit.' The Court observed, 'On the contrary, Respondent (Rajendra Gavit) has candidly and honestly disclosed information relating to his second marriage with Smt. Rupali Gavit. In my view, therefore Petitioner has failed to disclose real cause of action for challenging the election of the Respondent,' the HC noted. 'In my view, therefore, mere addition of a column in Form 26 Affidavit would not attract a ground for challenging the election. Thus, no ground under Section 100(1)(d)(i) or (iv) of 1951 Act is made out in the pleadings raised in the election petition, warranting its dismissal,' Justice Marne held.
