Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, has held that a Scheduled Tribe member who willingly adopts Hindu customs, rites, and traditions, thereby becoming Hinduised, cannot be barred from the Hindu Marriage Act's protection solely because its tribal exclusion provision withholds the statute's application to such communities. The Court intervened after a Family Court dismissed a mutual consent divorce petition filed by a Scheduled Tribe husband and Scheduled Caste wife, remitting the matter for fresh consideration on merits.

A wife belonging to the Scheduled Caste and a husband belonging to the Scheduled Tribe filed a joint application before the Family Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur, seeking dissolution of their marriage under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of mutual consent. The parties stated that their marriage was solemnized on 15-4-2009 in accordance with Hindu customs and ceremonies, including the performance of saptpadi, and that they had been following Hindu customs and traditions thereafter. A son was born to them on 28-12-2011, who resides with the wife. The parties began living separately from 6-4-2014.

Also Read: Supreme Court: Homebuyers Cannot Approach Consumer Forum After Electing RERA Remedy For Same Cause Of Action

The Family Court rejected the application holding that by virtue of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Act is not applicable to members of Scheduled Tribes, and therefore the application under Section 13B could not be entertained. Both parties challenged this rejection before the High Court of Chhattisgarh.

The Court examined Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to members of any Scheduled Tribe unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi, the Court noted that the following principle had been laid down by the Supreme Court:"The question which arises in the present case is, whether the parties who admittedly belong to the Santhal Tribe are still continuing with their customary tradition or have they after being Hinduised changed their customs to that which is followed by the Hindus."

The Supreme Court had recorded in that case that "though the parties originally belong to the Santhal Scheduled Tribes they are Hinduised and they are following the Hindu traditions. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that sub-section (2) will not apply to exclude the parties from application of the Hindu Succession Act."

The Court then referred to the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Chittapuli v. Union Government, which stated:"The provisions of Section 2(2) of the Act would have to be interpreted to mean that any member of a notified tribe can refuse to participate in any proceeding under the Act of 1955 on the ground that he/she is a member of a notified tribe and is following tribal customs and is not bound by or following Hindu customs. However, the same cannot bar a member of a notified schedule tribe who is hinduised from invoking the provisions of the Act of 1955, especially when the spouse is a non tribal Hindu."

The Court also relied upon the Delhi High Court's observation in Satprakash Meena v. Alka Meena, which stated:"If 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 HMA, 1955. Codified statutes and laws provide for various protections to parties against any unregulated practices from being adopted. In this day and age, relegating parties to customary Courts when they themselves admit that they are following Hindu customs and traditions would be antithetical to the purpose behind enacting a statute like the HMA, 1955."

Also Read: Unauthorised Entry Into School Premises Can Constitute 'House Trespass' Under IPC As Schools Qualify As 'Place For Custody Of Property' : Chhattisgarh High Court

The Court observed that Section 2(2) of the Act of 1955 is a measure of protection and not a measure of exclusion, and that when a member of a notified Scheduled Tribe voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground of being Hinduised and following Hindu customs, such member cannot be barred at the threshold from invoking the provisions of the Act.

The Court directed: "Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment & decree dated 12-8-2025 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Civil Suit No.11A/2025 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Family Court to decide the application under Section 13B of the Act of 1955 on its own merits, expeditiously, in accordance with law. Decree be drawn-up accordingly."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellants: Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate

Amicus Curiae: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate

Case Title: Smt. Gudiya Nagesh & Anr. v. State (arising from Civil Suit No.11A/2025)

Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:10933-DB

Case Number: FA(MAT) No. 344 of 2025

Bench: Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma