Chhattisgarh High Court Rules in Favor of Hinduised Tribal Couple Seeking Divorce
In a landmark judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside a Family Court order that rejected a mutual-consent divorce petition solely because the husband belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. The court held that the exclusion in Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is protective in nature and cannot be used as a threshold bar when the parties themselves assert and demonstrate that they married and live under Hindu customs.
Case Background and Family Court Decision
The appeal, registered as FA(MAT) No. 344 of 2025 and decided on March 3, 2026, involved a Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma. The case originated from a judgment dated August 12, 2025, by the Family Court in Bastar at Jagdalpur, which dismissed Civil Suit No. 11A/2025.
The appellants were the wife, Smt. Gudiya Nagesh, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste, and the husband, Muniraj Mandavi, a member of a Scheduled Tribe. Their marriage was solemnized on April 15, 2009, according to Hindu customs and ceremonies, including the saptpadi ritual. They have a son, Jaynil Mandavi, born on December 28, 2011, who resides with the wife, and the couple has been living separately since April 6, 2014.
Despite their joint application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, the Family Court rejected it. The court invoked Section 2(2), which states that the Act does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government issues a notification directing otherwise, thereby holding the petition non-maintainable.
Arguments Presented in High Court
Counsel for the appellants argued that the Family Court erred by rejecting the petition on its own motion. They emphasized that the husband, though a Scheduled Tribe member, had voluntarily adopted Hindu customs, with the marriage performed under Hindu rites. The appellants contended they had become "Hinduised," and thus should not be denied access to statutory remedies like mutual-consent divorce.
An amicus curiae, Senior Advocate Manoj Paranjpe, supported this position, highlighting that the parties admitted to following Hindu traditions. He cited precedents such as the Supreme Court decision in Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi and the Delhi High Court ruling in Ajmera Ramulu v. B Chandrakala, urging the court to remand the matter for a decision on merits.
High Court's Legal Analysis and Ruling
The High Court framed the central issue as whether the Family Court was justified in applying Section 2(2) to bar the petition due to the husband's tribal status. The Bench reproduced Section 2(2), which links to Article 366(25) of the Constitution and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, noting its protective intent for tribal customs.
Drawing on jurisprudence, the court referenced the Supreme Court's reasoning in Labishwar Manjhi, which established that when parties from a Scheduled Tribe follow Hindu traditions and are substantially Hinduised, the statutory exclusion does not apply. The Bench emphasized that Section 2(2) functions as a measure of protection, not exclusion, and cannot prevent Hinduised tribal persons from invoking the Act, especially when the spouse is a non-tribal Hindu.
Applying these principles, the High Court found it evident that the husband is a "tribal Hindu" and the wife a "non-tribal Hindu," with their marriage solemnized per Hindu customs. Since the husband voluntarily chose Hindu customs and the parties asserted adherence to Hindu traditions, the court held they could not be denied the Act's remedies or forced into customary courts.
The Family Court's reliance on Section 2(2) to reject the petition at the threshold was deemed erroneous, and the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the earlier judgment.
Legal Significance and Final Order
This ruling clarifies that Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act aims to preserve tribal customary laws, not to automatically exclude Scheduled Tribe members who adopt Hindu rites. It reinforces that maintainability depends on the parties' pleaded marital practices, not status alone.
The High Court remitted the matter to the Family Court in Bastar at Jagdalpur for an expeditious decision on the Section 13B application based on merits, in accordance with law. A decree was directed to be drawn accordingly, with appreciation noted for the amicus curiae's assistance.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is protective of tribal customs and cannot serve as an automatic bar in cases involving Scheduled Tribe members.
- A Scheduled Tribe member may object to proceedings under the Act by asserting tribal status, but voluntary submission based on being Hinduised cannot be blocked initially.
- When parties admit their marriage was solemnized under Hindu rites, including saptpadi, and follow Hindu customs, remedies like Section 13B are maintainable.
- Family Courts must decide such petitions on merits rather than rejecting them solely on Section 2(2) grounds.
Why This Matters
This decision significantly impacts access to statutory matrimonial remedies for inter-community couples where one spouse is a Scheduled Tribe member but the marriage is governed by Hindu customs. By treating Section 2(2) as protective, the High Court prevents denial of a codified legal forum in cases where parties seek relief under the Hindu Marriage Act and claim adoption of Hindu traditions. It ensures maintainability is assessed based on marital form and practices, safeguarding justice for Hinduised individuals.
