Shah, J. - (1.) Civil Appeal Nos. 3190, 3191 and 3192 of 1995 :-Can a married woman be termed as child and thereby member of her parents family Or -Whether she is member of her husband's family -As per normal feature in the Society - she would be member of her husband's family and not that of her parents.
(2.) However, it is the contention of the State Government that she would be member of her parents family for the purpose of land ceiling under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the basis of definition given to the word 'family' in Section 37(b) of the Act. The Full Bench of the High Court negatived the same by holding thus (Para 13):- ". . . .I am inclined to take the view that while defining 'family', the legislature was conscious of the position of married daughters and in view of the rural and agricultural set up in this part of the country, it was perhaps thought that ipso facto they, on being married away, ceased to be members of the parents family and become members of the husbands' family and therefore no provision was thought necessary to be made. Giving this interpretation to the statutory definition of the expression 'family' would not work out any violation either of the scheme of the legislation or injustice to a daughter exposing her to double jeopardy, once by aggregating her properties with her father's holding and then with her husband's holdings if her husband happens to be a land holder as such."
(3.) That order is under challenge in these appeals.;