The Chhattisgarh High Court set aside a Family Court order rejecting a mutual-consent divorce petition because the husband belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, ruling that Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 protections cannot bar couples married under Hindu customs.
CHHATTISGARH: The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside a Family Court order that dismissed a mutual-consent divorce petition solely because the husband is a member of a Scheduled Tribe. The High Court held that the exclusion in Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is protective in character and cannot be applied as a preliminary bar when the parties themselves assert and demonstrate that they were married and live according to Hindu customs.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma found the couple’s petition under Section 13B to be maintainable and remitted the case to the Family Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur, for adjudication on the merits.
Factual Backgrounds:
This appeal stems from the judgment and decree dated 12 August 2025 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur, in Civil Suit No.11A/2025. The appellants are Smt. Gudiya Nagesh (the wife) and Muniraj Mandavi (the husband). The wife belongs to a Scheduled Caste and the husband to a Scheduled Tribe.
They married on 15 April 2009 and have a son, Jaynil Mandavi (born 28 December 2011), who lives with the wife. The parties stated they have been living separately since 6 April 2014. The couple jointly filed an application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.
In their pleadings and statements before the Family Court, the parties said their marriage was conducted according to Hindu rites and ceremonies, including saptpadi, and that they follow Hindu practices rather than the customs of their respective communities.
Despite these assertions, the Family Court rejected the application, reasoning that Section 2(2) of the Act excludes members of Scheduled Tribes from its operation unless the Central Government notifies otherwise. On that basis, the Family Court concluded that a petition under Section 13B could not be entertained.
Submissions of Parties:
- Appellants’ submissions:
Counsel for the appellants contended that the Family Court erred in dismissing the petition suo motu by invoking Section 2(2). Their central argument was that, although the husband is a Scheduled Tribe member, he and his wife had stated that they observe Hindu customs and that their marriage was solemnised according to Hindu rites, including saptpadi.
ALSO READ: Foreign Law Cannot Dissolve Marriage Under Hindu Marriage Act: Gujarat High Court
On this ground they argued they had become “Hinduised,” and therefore the Family Court could not deny them the statutory remedy of mutual-consent divorce under Section 13B.
- Respondents’ stance and assistance of amicus:
The High Court record shows that Senior Advocate Manoj Paranjpe appeared as amicus curiae and supported the appellants’ position. He stressed that the parties’ admitted case was that the marriage was solemnised in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, including saptpadi, and argued that the Family Court should not have raised the issue of Section 2(2) to non-suit the parties when the husband had voluntarily adopted Hindu rites and customs.
The amicus relied on the Supreme Court decision in Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi and the Delhi High Court decision in Ajmera Ramulu v. B Chandrakala and requested that the matter be remanded for reconsideration on merits.
Analysis of the High Court:
The central question before the Court was whether the Family Court was justified in holding that Section 13B was inapplicable on the ground that the husband is a member of a Scheduled Tribe, thereby attracting the exclusion under Section 2(2) of the Act.
The Bench reproduced Section 2(2), which provides that nothing in the Act applies to members of any Scheduled Tribe as defined in Article 366(25) of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, directs otherwise. The Court observed the constitutional framework defining “Scheduled Tribes” and its connection to Article 342 and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
Turning to authority on the status of “Hinduised” tribal persons, the Court noted that “Hindu” is not statutorily defined and relied on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Labishwar Manjhi. In that decision the Supreme Court held that when evidence shows parties from a Scheduled Tribe follow Hindu traditions and are substantially Hinduised, the statutory exclusion does not operate to keep them outside the codified Hindu law framework.
The High Court treated Labishwar Manjhi as establishing that tribal persons who have adopted Hindu customs cannot be pushed into customary fora when they themselves admit adherence to Hindu rites and traditions.
The Bench also acknowledged the distinct socio-legal space occupied by tribal marriage and the constitutional recognition of tribal customs, noting that Section 2(2) expressly preserves the autonomy of Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government notifies otherwise.
Nevertheless, relying on Ajmera Ramulu v. B Chandrakala and Chittapuli v. Union Government, the Court emphasized that Section 2(2) serves a protective function rather than an exclusionary one. It accepted the proposition that a notified tribe member may refuse to invoke the Act by asserting tribal status and adherence to tribal customs, but the provision cannot be used to deny a Hinduised tribal person the benefits of the Act especially where the spouse is a non-tribal Hindu.
Applying these principles, the High Court found it “quite vivid” from the pleadings and statements that the husband is a “tribal Hindu” and the wife a “non-tribal Hindu,” and that their marriage was solemnised according to Hindu rites and traditions, including saptpadi.
Because the husband voluntarily chose to follow Hindu customs and the parties asserted their adherence to Hindu traditions, the Court held they could not be denied the remedies under the Act or directed to customary forums. The Family Court’s reliance on Section 2(2) to dismiss the petition at the threshold was therefore held to be erroneous.
Final Order:
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Family Court’s judgment and decree dated 12 August 2025, and remitted the matter to the Family Court to decide the Section 13B application on its merits, expeditiously and in accordance with law.
The Court directed that a decree be drawn accordingly and recorded its appreciation for the assistance of the amicus curiae.
The judgment clarifies that Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is intended to safeguard tribal customary laws and autonomy, but it does not prevent Scheduled Tribe members who voluntarily adopt Hindu rites and present themselves as governed by Hindu customs from accessing the codified matrimonial remedies.
The decision reinforces that maintainability cannot be defeated solely by tribal status where the parties’ pleadings and evidence demonstrate a Hindu customary marriage under Section 7, including saptpadi, and an expressed choice to follow Hindu traditions.
Case Title: . Smt. Gudiya Nagesh & Muniraj Mandavi Vs NILL [FA(MAT) No. 344 of 2025]
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES