The Bombay High Court has ruled that a woman from a backward caste can file a complaint against her forward caste husband under the Atrocities Act if abused by the husbands family or public at large. A full bench,comprising Justices B H Marlapalle,Abhay Oka and R Y Ganoo,held that such a woman is not automatically transplanted into her husbands caste. The full bench was constituted after two single judges differed in their opinion. While hearing a petition filed by Rajendra Shrivastava,husband of the complainant wife,Justice D B Bhosale had said a lady on marriage becomes a member of the family and thereby member of the caste. However,that does not mean that she loses her recognition as a person belonging to a backward caste which she acquired by birth. However,Justice V M Kanade,while granting anticipatory bail to the husbands sister,took the view that since she is married to a forward caste,a complaint could not have been filed saying that she was abused in the name of her caste after her marriage and that it amounted to an offence under Atrocities Act. During the hearing of the case,the petitioner and state had relied on various apex court judgments. The constitution bench of the apex court had held that the caste is acquired by birth,and caste does not undergo a change by marriage or adoption. The full bench held that the label attached to a person born into a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe continues notwithstanding marriage. The judges pointed out that no material has been placed before the court to point out that caste of a person can be changed either by custom,usage,religious sanction or provision of law. If the applicants contention is accepted,it will defeat the very object of enacting the Act. It will defeat the innovative steps taken by the framers of our constitution for protecting the persons belonging to SC/ST who have suffered for generations.
