Scheduled Tribe Person Can Voluntarily Opt To Be Governed By Hindu Marriage Act: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that if a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe (ST) voluntarily chooses to follow Hindu customs, rites and traditions in order to get 'Hinduised' and opts to submit himself to the jurisdictional Court under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the HMA'), he cannot be denied its cover merely because Section 2(2) thereof excludes its application to the...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that if a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe (ST) voluntarily chooses to follow Hindu customs, rites and traditions in order to get 'Hinduised' and opts to submit himself to the jurisdictional Court under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the HMA'), he cannot be denied its cover merely because Section 2(2) thereof excludes its application to the ST community.
While answering the disputed question of law, the Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma observed–
“…when a member of such a notified scheduled tribe voluntarily submits himself or herself to the jurisdiction of the Court under the Act, on the ground that he/she are [sic] Hindus who are Hinduised and follow Hindu customs and practices, such member cannot be prohibited or barred, at the threshold, from invoking such a provision. As such, when members of a tribe voluntarily choose to follow Hindu customs, traditions and rites, they cannot be kept out of the purview of the provisions of the Act of 1955.”
The appellants herein are married couple, who solemnised their marriage as per Hindu rites and customs in 2009. While the wife belonged to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category, the husband was from the ST community. Despite belonging to the ST community, the husband opted to follow the Hindu rituals of marriage including 'Saptapadi'.
They started living separately from April 2014 and ultimately decided to part ways through a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the HMA. However, the Judge, Family Court, Bastar dismissed the divorce application holding that by virtue of Section 2(2) of the HMA, the said Act is not applicable to the members of ST community. Being aggrieved, both of them preferred this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act.
The moot question which arose for consideration was whether the Family Court is justified in holding that Section 13-B of the HMA would not be applicable to the parties, as the husband belongs to ST community, and thereby the application of the aforesaid provision would be excluded by virtue of Section 2(2) of the Act.
Before delving to answer the question, the Court briefly referred to Section 2(2) of the Act which says nothing contained in the Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of Article 366(25) of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.
The Bench then relied upon the relevant ruling of the Apex Court in Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi & Ors. (2000), which held if the parties follow Hindu traditions and customs and they are substantially Hinduised, they cannot be relegated to the customary Courts, especially when they themselves admit to be following Hindu rites, customs and traditions. However, the said case was deciding applicability of the Hindu Succession Act to person belonging to ST community.
“As such, it appears from the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Labishwar Manjhi (supra) that it is well recognised principle of law that members of Scheduled Tribe shall be governed by the Hindu law in the matter of succession and inheritance and when evidence disclose that parties belonging to Scheduled Tribe were following traditions/customs of Hindus, provisions of the Hindu Succession Act would apply to them,” the Court held.
Further relying upon the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh and Delhi High Courts Chittapuli v. Union Government Represented by its Secretary & Ors. (2020) and Satprakash Meena v. Alka Meena (2021) respectively, the Court held that when the parties voluntarily follow Hindu rites and customs and also perform 'Spatapadi', they cannot be excluded from the purview of the HMA by being relegated to the customary Courts.
“Similarly, Section 2(2) of the Act of 1955 is a measure of protection and not a measure of exclusion. In a case where the Act is sought to be applied to a member of a notified tribe, it would be open to such a member to object to any such proceeding on the ground that he/she is a member of a notified Scheduled Tribe and as such, he/she is entitled to the benefit of Section 2(2) of the Act,” it added.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the case was remitted back to the Family Court to decide the mutual divorce application under Section 13-B of the HMA on its own merits.
Case Title: Smt. Gudiya Nagesh & Anr. v. Nil
Case No: FA(MAT) No. 344 of 2025
Date of Judgment: March 03, 2026
Counsel Appearance: Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate for the Appellants; Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate