Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Telangana Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy allowed an appeal by a Schedule Tribe woman and declared her registered marriage with a Scheduled Caste man void and unenforceable under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, holding that a marriage registered under that Act cannot stand where one party is not governed by it. The dispute arose from the woman’s challenge to the validity of the marriage and her allegation that her signatures were obtained under threat and coercion, while the man asserted that the marriage was voluntary and duly registered. The Bench set aside the Family Court’s decree that had declined to declare the marriage void.

The dispute arose from a petition filed by the woman before the Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She alleged that the man had harassed her over a period of time, forcibly took her away under threats of acid attack, confined her, and obtained her signatures on documents. She asserted that an alleged marriage ceremony and registration were performed under coercion and threat, without her free consent.

Also Read: Alleged Forged Arbitration Agreement Renders Dispute Non-Arbitrable; Supreme Court

The man denied these allegations and contended that both parties were in a consensual relationship, had voluntarily married under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and had lived as husband and wife. He relied on letters, photographs, and registration records to support his claim.

Before the Family Court, the woman examined herself and her father as witnesses and relied on a police complaint. The man examined himself and produced documentary evidence including letters and photographs. The Family Court dismissed the petition, holding that cruelty and forcible marriage were not proved. Aggrieved, the woman preferred an appeal. A central issue raised before the High Court was the applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in light of the woman’s admitted status as a member of a Scheduled Tribe under Section 2(2) of the Act.

The Division Bench examined the statutory framework governing the applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court observed “nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.”

The Court recorded that the caste status of the parties was admitted and stated “It is not in dispute that the respondent belongs to SC Mala, whereas the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. The caste status of the parties thus stands admitted. It is also not in dispute that the marriage between the parties was registered under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and that it is alleged to have been solemnised in a temple according to Hindu rites and customs. The decisive question, therefore, is whether such registration or form of solemnization can confer validity when one of the parties is statutorily excluded from the operation of the Act”

While considering the effect of registration and performance of marriage ceremonies, the Court stated “A marriage registered under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, cannot be sustained in law if one of the parties is not governed by the Act. The applicability of a personal law statute flows from legislative mandate and not from the volition or conduct of the parties. Where a Hindu seeks to marry a person not amenable to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the legally permissible course is to contract such marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which is a secular enactment designed to govern such unions. In the present case, the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tribe to which the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not apply by virtue of Section 2(2). In the absence of any Central Government notification extending the Act, statutory exclusion continues to operate, and cannot be neutralised by registration, ceremony, or mutual consent”.

With respect to proof of custom or Hinduisation, the Court observed “there is neither pleading nor evidence to establish that the petitioner had abandoned tribal customs or was governed exclusively by Hindu personal law.”

The Court further stated “mere performance of marriage according to Hindu rites or registration under the Act is legally insufficient.” On the approach adopted by the Family Court, the Bench observed “when jurisdiction itself is contingent upon such applicability, failure to adjudicate the same renders the entire exercise jurisdictionally infirm.”

Also Read: Illegal Adoption Cannot Be Regularised By Emotional Bond; Telangana High Court Refuses Custody Restoration Of Minor Girl

The Court directed: “the appeal is allowed. The order and decree dated 11.07.2014 passed by the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, in O.P. No. 158 of 2013, is hereby set aside. It is declared that the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, insofar as it is sought to be recognised or enforced under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is void and unenforceable in law.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Smt. M. Venkateshwari, Advocate
For the Respondents: No appearance

Case Title: XXXX v. XXXX
Case Number: Family Court Appeal No. 195 of 2014
Bench: Justice K. Lakshman, Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy