Can woman with 2 kids, 1 stepkid contest panchayat polls? HC refers case to CJ

Nagpur: Can a Muslim woman, who is the mother of three children, including a step kid, contest the village panchayat elections? The Nagpur bench of Bombay high court has referred the case to the chief justice.
Khairunisa, wife of Sheikh Chand, through counsel Sameer and Sukrut Sohoni approached HC after she was disqualified by the Akola collector as member as per clause (j-1) Section 14(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat (MVP) Act, for having more than two children. She was the second wife of her husband and had two children from him. The stepchild was from her husband’s first wife.

The petitioner contended that since the religious practice in their community permits having up to four wives, each wife would be able to have two children, and she cannot be held to be disqualified.
While hearing her contentions, justice Avinash Gharote framed a question for the chief justice, requesting him to refer the issue to the division bench, if he deems fit.
He asked, “Whether the expression ‘two children’ as used in clause (j-1), is used in the generic sense to include all children from the present or the previous spouse, or is used in the restricted sense to mean only children born from the present spouse?”
“It is another thing to say that the religious practice in a community permits four marriages. Therefore, it would be permissible for the petitioner’s husband to have two children from each of his wives. That is, however, a personal law and does not come in the way of the rigour of the statutory provision being enforced,” the judge said.
Spelling out the purpose for enacting the provision, justice Gharote said it was to control the increase in population by ensuring a small family, restricted to the mother, father and two children.
“To ensure this, the disqualification as contemplated by clause (j-1) was introduced. A similar provision in Section 175 (1)(q) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. After considering the legislative intent in enacting the provision considering the burgeoning population, the challenge to its constitutional validity was rejected.”