Case at a Glance
A couple who married with saptapadi in 2009 and separated in 2014 jointly sought divorce by mutual consent. The Family Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur, rejected their petition on its own motion because the husband belongs to a Scheduled Tribe, and Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act excludes Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government directs otherwise. The Chhattisgarh High Court held that tribal members who voluntarily adopt Hindu customs are not excluded, set aside the order, and remitted the petition for decision on merits.
Background
The wife belongs to a Scheduled Caste and the husband to a Scheduled Tribe. They married on 15 April 2009 with saptapadi and have a son, who lives with the wife. They have lived apart since 6 April 2014. In their joint petition under Section 13B, they stated that they follow Hindu customs.
On 12 August 2025 the Judge, Family Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur, rejected the petition in Civil Suit No. 11A/2025, holding that Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act barred its application because the husband is a Scheduled Tribe member. The couple appealed jointly, and the High Court appointed a senior advocate as amicus curiae.
The Question Before the Court
Does Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act bar a mutual consent divorce petition where a Scheduled Tribe spouse has adopted Hindu customs?
A Shield, Not a Bar
Relying on Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi, the Court held that Hinduised tribal members are not excluded from Hindu statutes. It followed the Delhi High Court in Ajmera Ramulu v. B. Chandrakala and Satprakash Meena v. Alka Meena, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chittapuli v. Union Government.
Section 2(2) protects tribal customs; it does not bar members who choose to follow Hindu rites from invoking the Act. Since both parties admitted they follow Hindu customs and married with saptapadi, the Section 13B petition was maintainable. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Family Court's judgment and decree, and remitted the petition to be decided on its own merits, expeditiously.
What the Court Held
- Section 2(2) is a protective provision for tribal customs, not a bar on Hinduised members.
- Tribal members who voluntarily follow Hindu rites may invoke the Hindu Marriage Act.
- The parties' joint petition under Section 13B was maintainable.
- The Family Court's decree was set aside and the petition remitted for decision on merits.
Why It Matters
- Tribal couples following Hindu rites can access mutual consent divorce.
- Family Courts should not reject such petitions at the threshold.
- It aligns Chhattisgarh with Delhi and Andhra Pradesh High Court views.
For Litigants / For Counsel
For litigants
- If you follow Hindu customs, state this clearly in your petition.
- Evidence of Hindu rites such as saptapadi can be important.
For counsel
- Plead and prove Hinduisation where a party belongs to a Scheduled Tribe.
- Cite Labishwar Manjhi and this decision against threshold rejections.
Key Takeaways
- Section 2(2) is protective.
- Hinduised tribals not excluded.
- Petition maintainable.
- Remitted for merits.
FAQs
Does the Hindu Marriage Act apply to Scheduled Tribes?
Not by default, but the Court held that members who adopt Hindu customs are not excluded.
Was divorce granted?
No. The petition was sent back to the Family Court to decide on merits.
Who argued the point?
A senior advocate assisted as amicus curiae.
Conclusion
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that a tribal spouse who has embraced Hindu rites cannot be shut out of the Hindu Marriage Act at the threshold.
Practical takeaway: whether the Act applies depends on how the parties actually live, not only on their tribal status.