Back
ST Husband's ' ' Marriage Opens Door to Mutual Divorce: Chhattisgarh HC
In a landmark ruling blending tribal customs with codified Hindu law, the has ruled that members of Scheduled Tribes (ST) can invoke provisions of the (HMA), including mutual consent divorce under Section 13B, if they voluntarily adopt Hindu rites. Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Arvind Kumar Verma allowed the appeal in Smt. Gudiya Nagesh v. Muniraj Mandavi (FA(MAT) No. 344/2025), setting aside a family court's rejection and remanding the case for a merits-based decision.
From Hindu Wedding Vows to Separation Stalemate
Gudiya Nagesh, from the Scheduled Caste community, and Muniraj Mandavi, from the Scheduled Tribe, married on , in a ceremony following Hindu customs, including the pivotal (seven steps around the sacred fire). Their union produced a son, Jaynil, born in , but the couple parted ways on . Seeking an amicable end, they filed for divorce by mutual consent under before the (Civil Suit No. 11A/2025).
The family court dismissed their plea on , citing , which excludes ST members unless notified otherwise by the Central Government. Undeterred, the couple appealed under , arguing their self-admitted adherence to Hindu traditions made the Act applicable.
Appellants' Plea: 'We've Chosen Hindu Rites, Honor That'
Counsel urged the high court not to let Section 2(2) bar relief, emphasizing the couple's consistent statements that their marriage followed Hindu ceremonies, including . The husband, despite ST roots, had " " himself, voluntarily submitting to HMA jurisdiction. , a senior advocate assisted by , reinforced this, arguing ST members aren't forced into exclusion—it's protective, not prohibitive. They cited Supreme Court and high court precedents allowing Hindu law for " " tribes.
The family court had no opposing side, as this was a mutual petition turned contested on jurisdictional grounds.
Bench's Deep Dive: Protection, Not Blanket Bar
The dissected , noting it shields tribal customs under but doesn't preclude voluntary adoption of Hindu practices. Drawing from the Supreme Court's Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi (2000) 8 SCC 587—originally on succession—the court extended the logic: ST members following Hindu traditions, like shradh and vermilion post-marriage, qualify as " ."
Lower court rulings bolstered this. Andhra Pradesh HC in Chittapuli v. Union Government (AIR 2021 AP 121) clarified ST members can opt into HMA, especially against non-tribal spouses. Delhi HC's Satprakash Meena v. Alka Meena (2021 SCC OnLine Del 3645) echoed that and fire-centric ceremonies align parties with HMA, rejecting relegation to potentially unregulated customary forums. Ajmera Ramulu v. B Chandrakala (2025 SCC OnLine Del 8248) further affirmed tribal marriages' autonomy unless .
The bench stressed: Hindu marriage is a sacrament, not contract, and Section 2(2) protects customs but yields to voluntary choice.
Key Observations from the Judgment
-
On Section 2(2)'s true intent : “Similarly, is a measure of protection and not a measure of exclusion. In a case where the Act is sought to be applied to a member of a notified tribe, it would be open to such a member to object...”
-
Hinduisation principle from Supreme Court : “...though the parties originally belong to the Santhal Scheduled Tribes they are and they are following the Hindu traditions. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that sub-section (2) of Section 2... will not apply... ( Labishwar Manjhi )”
-
Voluntary submission key : “...when members of a tribe voluntarily choose to follow Hindu customs, traditions and rites, they cannot be kept out of the purview of the provisions of the Act of 1955.”
-
No relegation to customs : “...they cannot be relegated to the customary Courts, as the object of Section 2(2)... is to protect their own (Scheduled Tribe’s) customary laws...”
As legal reports note, this aligns with growing jurisprudence favoring codified safeguards over uncertain tribal forums when parties opt in.
Victory on Remand: Divorce Path Cleared
The appeal succeeded: “...the impugned judgment & decree dated ... are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Family Court to decide the application under on its own merits, expeditiously...”
This decision empowers inter-community couples, clarifying ST individuals can access HMA's mutual divorce if " " via rites like . It prioritizes party autonomy, potentially easing separations while preserving tribal protections for those invoking them. Future cases may see more such claims tested on evidence of customs followed.
