Karnataka woman disqualified for judge's post due to polygamy

Bangalore: One can lose out on the opportunity to become a judge if one marries a man who already has a wife. Radharani Mahadev Kolambe, 33, had secured 41st rank among 232 candidates selected for the post of civil judge, but she was disqualified after it was found that she had married her brother-in-law who already had a wife. She was found in breach of rule 5(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) rules which disqualifies a “woman who has married a man already having another wife”. In this case, Radharani had married her brother-in-law while her sister was still married to him. Justice AN Venugopala Gowda noted in his judgement that Radharani had denied having knowledge of the first and second marriage of her husband on the date of her wedding and “for a long time after her marriage”.But since she has not denied that her sister was already married to the same man and was living with him, the government was right in rejecting her claim for the post of civil judge, Justice Gowda said. Radharani had married Gopala B Patil in August 2002, and a male child was born. Patil had previously married Shobha B Lagade, and had three children with her. The marriage later ended in divorce and he later married Mathura, the elder sister of Radharani and had three children with her. Mathura is still living with Patil. In 2006, the government issued a notification inviting applications for posts of civil judges. The post had a payscale of Rs 9,000- 14,500. Radharani was successful in both the written exam and the viva voce test and when a list of the selected candidates — 232 of them — was published, she had secured 41st rank. However, when the list of judges appointed was notified by the Governor on September 30, 2008, Radharani's name was missing. The government had received information that she was married to a man who already had another wife and she was disqualified under 5(2) of the civil services rules. Radharani challenged her disqualification in Karnataka High Court, but her petition was dismissed. In his judgement, Justice Gowda says: “Polygamy brings with it misery, plight and ignominy to a woman. The Hindu Marriage Act nullifies and supersedes the practice of polygamy and hypergamy all over the country among the Hindus. "The Rule 5(2) in question is also intended to achieve the laudable object of monogamy.”Hypergamy refers to the practice of marrying a person of higher caste or status than oneself. Justice Gowda's verdict cites a 1995 judgement of the Supreme Court. “The Apex Court has judicially noticed it being acclaimed in the United States of America that the practice of polygamy is injurious to 'public morals', even though some religions may make it obligatory or desirable for its followers.” Rule5(2)states:“No man who has more than one wife living and no woman who has married a man already having another wife shall be eligible for appointment to a state civil service.” In her petition before the high court, Radharani contended that both meant the same thing and amounted to discrimination against women. She challenged her disqualification on the grounds that the rule discriminated between a citizen and a civil servant. She also argued that there was a provision for exemption to the rule which was not applied in her case. The government in its objections said that granting exemption was at its pleasure and was limited to persons who had incurred disability. Radharani was undeserving of it since the rule was framed with the sole objective of “ensuring people of high morality are appointed to the state civil service”. Justice AN Venugopala Gowda's judgement also touches on a case of personal law such as Mohammedan law, being in conflict with statutory laws. Citing the Mohd Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum case, Justice Gowda states, "The Constitution bench has laid down two principles; firstly, the two provisions operate in different fields and, therefore, there is no conflict, and secondly, even if there is a conflict, it should be set at rest by holding that the statutory law will prevail over the personal law of the parties, in cases where they are in conflict."