The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a husband belonging to a Scheduled Tribe who voluntarily married a non-tribal wife under Hindu rites and followed Hindu customs cannot be excluded from the scope of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Court set aside a Family Court order that had rejected the couple’s plea for divorce by mutual consent. It remitted the matter for fresh consideration on merits.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma delivered the judgment on March 3, 2026 in FA(MAT) No. 344 of 2025. The appeal arose from the judgment and decree dated August 12, 2025 in Civil Suit No. 11A/2025 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur.
The wife and husband filed the appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. They challenged the Family Court’s refusal to entertain their petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce by mutual consent.
Mr. Ishan Verma appeared for the appellants. Senior Advocate Manoj Paranjpe assisted the Court as amicus curiae along with Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate.
Background of the Dispute
The appellants stated that the wife belongs to a Scheduled Caste and the husband belongs to a Scheduled Tribe.
They married on April 15, 2009. A son was born to them on December 28, 2011, and he currently lives with the wife. The couple has lived separately since April 6, 2014.
In their petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the parties stated that their marriage was solemnised according to Hindu customs and ceremonies, including saptpadi. They also stated that they followed Hindu customs instead of the traditions of their respective communities.
Both parties repeated these statements before the Family Court.
Despite this, the Family Court rejected the petition. It relied on Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which bars the application of the statute to members of Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government issues a notification in the Official Gazette.
Submissions Before the High Court
Counsel for the appellants argued that the parties had clearly stated that they followed Hindu customs and traditions. Their marriage was also solemnised according to Hindu rites, including saptpadi.
On this basis, counsel submitted that the parties had become “Hinduised.” Therefore, the Family Court should not have rejected the petition under Section 13B by invoking Section 2(2) of the Act.
The amicus curiae supported this argument. He submitted that once the parties admitted that they had married according to Hindu rites and customs, the Family Court could not deny them relief under the Hindu Marriage Act merely because the husband belonged to a Scheduled Tribe.
The parties relied on the judgments in:
- Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi & Ors. (2000) 8 SCC 587
- Ajmera Ramulu v. B. Chandrakala [2025 SCC OnLine Del 8248]
Issue Before the Court
The High Court framed the key issue as whether the Family Court was correct in holding that Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act did not apply because the husband belonged to a Scheduled Tribe.
The Bench examined Section 2(2) of the Act. The provision states that the Hindu Marriage Act does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes within the meaning of Article 366(25) of the Constitution, unless the Central Government directs otherwise through notification.
The Court also referred to Article 342 and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 while interpreting the constitutional meaning of “Scheduled Tribes.”
Court’s Analysis
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Labishwar Manjhi. The judgment held that when evidence shows that members of a Scheduled Tribe follow Hindu traditions and customs, courts cannot force them back into customary forums merely because of their tribal origin.
In Labishwar Manjhi, the Supreme Court noted that the parties originally belonged to the Santhal Scheduled Tribe. However, they had become Hinduised and followed Hindu customs. Therefore, the Court applied the Hindu Succession Act.
The High Court observed that members of Scheduled Tribes may be governed by Hindu law in matters such as succession and inheritance if evidence shows that they follow Hindu traditions and customs.
At the same time, the Bench recognised that marriages within Scheduled Tribes occupy a distinct socio-legal space. Such marriages often follow customary laws and usages protected under Article 13(3)(a) and Article 342 of the Constitution.
The Court also referred to the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in Chittapuli v. Union Government Represented by its Secretary & Ors. [AIR 2021 AP 121]. The judgment held that Section 2(2) functions as a protective provision rather than a restrictive one.
A member of a Scheduled Tribe may object to proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act by asserting that they follow tribal customs. However, a Hinduised tribal person who voluntarily invokes the Act cannot be prevented from doing so, especially when the spouse is a non-tribal Hindu.
The Bench also relied on the Delhi High Court decision in Satprakash Meena v. Alka Meena [2021 SCC OnLine Del 3645], which held that tribal members who voluntarily follow Hindu rites cannot be excluded from the Hindu Marriage Act.
Findings of the Court
Applying these principles, the High Court noted that the wife is a non-tribal Hindu, while the husband is a Scheduled Tribe member who voluntarily married under Hindu rites.
Both parties had pleaded and deposed that they followed Hindu customs, traditions, and ceremonies, including saptpadi.
The Bench held that the parties had become “Hinduised out and out.”
Therefore, they could not be excluded from the scope of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Court clarified that Section 2(2) aims to protect tribal customs and traditions. However, the provision cannot be used as a tool of exclusion where the parties themselves choose to follow Hindu customs.
Final Directions
The High Court held that the Family Court had erred in rejecting the petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated August 12, 2025 in Civil Suit No. 11A/2025.
The matter was remitted to the Family Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur, which was directed to decide the petition for mutual consent divorce on merits and in accordance with law.
The Court also recorded its appreciation for the assistance rendered by Senior Advocate Manoj Paranjpe, who assisted the Court as amicus curiae and prepared the matter on short notice.
