Tribal Couple, Hindu Rites: Rajasthan High Court Grants Mutual-Consent Divorce Under the Hindu Marriage Act

Case at a Glance

A Family Court in Kota refused a mutual-consent divorce to a Meena couple, a Scheduled Tribe, because they had not pleaded their community’s customs. A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court set that decision aside, holding that Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act protects tribal custom but does not shut out tribal members who have married and live by Hindu rites, and dissolved the marriage under Section 13-B after waiving the six-month cooling-off period.

Both parties belong to the Meena community, a Scheduled Tribe. They married on 12 June 2017 by Hindu rites, including Saptapadi. After differences arose, they signed a mutual-consent agreement on 15 September 2024, and a Meena community social reform body issued a certificate recording the dissolution. The wife then filed a suit before Family Court No. 1, Kota, seeking a decree of divorce by mutual consent; the husband did not oppose it.

On 3 September 2025 the Family Court dismissed the suit, mainly because the parties had not pleaded the customs, rituals and usages of the Meena community and had not shown that the dissolution followed those customs. In appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, both sides jointly asked the High Court to treat the case as a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, stating that they follow Hindu religion, rites and traditions.

The Key Question Before the Court

Does Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which excludes members of Scheduled Tribes from the Act, bar a tribal couple who married and live by Hindu rites from seeking divorce under it?

Protection, Not Exclusion

The Bench treated Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act as pari materia with Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act and relied on Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi, (2000) 8 SCC 587, where the Supreme Court held that Hinduised members of a Scheduled Tribe who follow Hindu customs are not excluded. It adopted the Delhi High Court’s reasoning on a Meena marriage in Satprakash Meena v. Alka Meena, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s view in Chittapuli v. Union Government that the provision is a measure of protection, not exclusion.

The Court stated that while Section 2(2) protects customary practice, Hinduised parties who follow Hindu traditions “cannot be relegated to customary courts”, especially when they admit following Hindu rites. Here both parties accepted Hindu rites for marriage and dissolution and neither claimed any other custom, which answered the Family Court’s concern about unpleaded customs. They had lived apart since 2021, had no child, there was no collusion, alimony was settled and no other cases were pending. Relying on Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, the Court held that “the cooling-off period of six months deserves to be waived off” on these facts.

What the Court Actually Held

• Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act protects tribal customary practice but does not bar Hinduised tribal members who follow Hindu rites from invoking the Act.
• The parties’ admission that they follow Hindu rites answered the Family Court’s objection about unpleaded customs.
• The six-month cooling-off period under Section 13-B(2) was waived on the peculiar facts, following Amardeep Singh.
• The Family Court’s judgment of 3 September 2025 was set aside and the marriage of 12 June 2017 was dissolved by a mutual-consent decree.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It opens the Hindu Marriage Act route for tribal couples who married and live by Hindu rites.
• It prevents Family Courts from dismissing such petitions merely for want of pleaded tribal customs.
• It reaffirms that the Section 13-B cooling-off period can be waived in suitable cases.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Family Lawyers

• Plead clearly that the parties follow Hindu religion, rites and customs, including Saptapadi.
• Cite Labishwar Manjhi and Satprakash Meena when a Section 2(2) objection is raised.
• Seek waiver of the cooling-off period with facts on separation, settlement and absence of other litigation.

For Family Courts

• Do not treat Section 2(2) as an automatic bar where parties admit following Hindu rites.
• Record the parties’ admissions on custom before dismissing for unpleaded customs.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

The Court held that tribal members who have married and live by Hindu rites and traditions are not barred; the decision turned on the parties’ admitted Hindu practice.

Because the parties had not pleaded the customs, rituals and usages of the Meena community.

No. The Court waived it on the peculiar facts, relying on Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur.

Conclusion