IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Satprakash Meena - Appellant
Versus
Alka Meena - Respondent
C.R.P.1 OF 2021 and CM APPL. 332 OF 2021
Decided on : 07-07-2021
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 2(2) and 13-1(ia) - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 10 and 11 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 35 and 44 - Uniform Civil Code - Seeking maintenance - applicability of Act, 1955 - Petitioner and Respondent got married on 24th June, 2012 - In divorce petition, since Respondent did not appear, she was proceeded ex-parte - However, after she was permitted to participate in proceedings through video conferencing by Supreme Court (in transfer petition), she filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 of Code, 1908 before Family Court - Said application she prayed for rejection of divorce petition, on ground that provisions of HMA, 1955 do not apply to parties concerned as they are members of a notified Scheduled Tribe in Rajasthan, and hence HMA, 1955 would not be applicable to case of said parties in view of Section 2(2) of HMA, 1955 - whether in these facts, the parties ought to be governed by the provisions of the HMA or should they be relegated to procedures of the Meena tribe?
Finding of the Court:
Admittedly party’s marriage was solemnised as per the Hindu customs and rites. Ld. counsel for the Respondent-wife admitted during course of submissions that wife did not deny that she is a Hindu and the tribe is a Hindu tribe, however, according to him this would not take away status of parties being a part of the notified Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution of India - Trial court has failed to consider the admissions made by the Respondent wife which have been set out hereinabove leading to the incorrect conclusion - Article 44 of Constitution that State shall secure for its citizens Uniform Civil Code ought not to remain a mere hope - Supreme Court had, in 1985 directed that judgment in Ms. Jordon Diengdeh (supra) to be placed before the Ministry of Law to take appropriate steps - However, more than three decades have passed since then and it is unclear as to what steps have been taken in this regard till date.
Result: Appeal is allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key legal points are as follows:
Applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA, 1955):
The applicability of the HMA, 1955 to parties belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, such as the Meena community, depends on whether they are Hindu by religion and follow Hindu customs and rites. If they are Hinduised and conduct marriage according to Hindu rituals, the provisions of the HMA, 1955 are applicable. Conversely, if they are members of a notified Scheduled Tribe and follow their own customary laws, the Act may not apply unless explicitly notified by the Central Government (!) (!) (!) .
Exclusion under Section 2(2) of the HMA, 1955:
The Act explicitly excludes members of Scheduled Tribes from its scope unless the Central Government issues a notification in the official gazette to include them. The mere fact that the community is a Scheduled Tribe does not automatically exempt them; the exemption is contingent upon such a notification (!) (!) (!) .
Evidence of Customs and Rituals:
For tribal communities, customs and rites are significant in determining legal rights such as marriage and divorce. The court must examine whether the community follows Hindu customs or their own traditional practices. If the parties have conducted marriage according to Hindu rites—such as Saptpadi, fire ceremonies, and using Hindu symbols—this indicates that they are Hinduised, and the HMA, 1955 should apply. Proper evidence must be led to establish customary laws, as assumptions cannot be made without proof (!) (!) (!) .
Role of Custom in Civil Rights and Personal Laws:
Customs among tribal communities can be considered for determining civil rights and status, but only if they are ancient, certain, and proved through evidence. Customs that are not established or are unverified cannot be presumed to have legal force, especially in criminal law contexts such as bigamy. If customs are not proven, the general law applicable to Hindus would govern (!) (!) .
Impact of Religious and Cultural Identity:
Even if community members follow Hindu rites, their tribal identity and customary laws may take precedence if they are not Hinduised. The court must carefully analyze whether the community’s customs have been assimilated into Hindu practices or remain distinct. The absence of formal notification or evidence of customary law means the default is to apply the general civil law for Hindus (!) (!) .
Importance of Evidence and Proper Trial:
When a community claims exemption based on customary laws, the court must conduct a proper trial with evidence to establish the existence and nature of such customs. Presumption without evidence is insufficient, and the court should not dismiss cases solely on assumptions about community practices (!) (!) .
Uniform Civil Code and Constitutional Principles:
The constitutional mandate for a Uniform Civil Code aims to unify personal laws across communities, reducing conflicts and ensuring equal rights. Despite this, India currently lacks a comprehensive uniform law, and courts have emphasized the importance of legislative action in this direction. The absence of a uniform code leads courts to interpret personal laws and customs on a case-by-case basis, often highlighting the need for reform (!) (!) (!) .
Courts’ Role in Reconciling Personal Laws and Customs:
Courts are tasked with balancing respect for community customs and the need for legal certainty. When customs are unproven or conflict with statutory law, the courts tend to favor the application of codified statutes to uphold rights and safeguard individuals, especially women. Proper evidence and adherence to legal procedures are essential in such determinations (!) .
In summary, the legal position emphasizes that if a community, even if classified as a Scheduled Tribe, conducts marriage according to Hindu customs and rites, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is applicable. However, this is subject to proof of such customs, and the absence of a notification from the government excludes the application of the Act. The courts prioritize evidence-based decisions to respect customary laws while upholding constitutional principles of uniformity and individual rights.
JUDGMENT :
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. The question in this petition is as to the applicability of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as the “HMA, 1955”), in respect of the parties who belong to the Meena community in view of the exclusion under Section 2(2) of the HMA, 1955.
2. The Petitioner - Mr. Satprakash Meena and the Respondent- Ms. Alka Meena got married on 24th June, 2012. According to the Petitioner, the marriage was solemnized in Jaipur, Rajasthan, as per Hindu rites and customs. Both the parties belong to the Meena community and the same is an admitted position. The Petitioner is an engineer who is working in Delhi and the Respondent is stated to be a house maker. The parties have a minor child namely Master Lakshya, who was born on 12th April, 2013 in Delhi.
3. A petition seeking divorce under Section 13-1(ia) of the HMA, 1955was filed by the Petitioner on 2nd December, 2015, before the Principal Judge (West), Family Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi. The Respondent did not appear in the said petition. There is a dispute as to whether the Respondent was served or not. The Respondent, however, preferred a transfer petition being Alka Meena v. Satprakash Meena [Transfer Petition Civil No. 1671/2016] before the Supreme Court. In the said transfer petition, according to the Petitioner, the Respondent took a categorical stand that the marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu rites and customs. Vide order dated 6th April, 2017, the transfer petition was disposed of, however, the Respondent was permitted to avail of the facility to participate in the proceedings through video conferencing.
4. An FIR was lodged by the Respondent under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter the “DV Act”) as also an application seeking maintenance, under Section 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter the “CrPC”) in the city of Jaipur.
5. In the divorce petition, since the Respondent did not appear, she was proceeded ex-parte. However, after she was permitted to participate in the proceedings through video conferencing by the Supreme Court (in the transfer petition), she filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “the CPC”) before the Family Court. In the said application she prayed for rejection of the divorce petition, on the ground that the provisions of the HMA, 1955 do not apply to the parties concerned as they are members of a notified Scheduled Tribe in Rajasthan, and hence the HMA, 1955 would not be applicable to the case of the said parties in view of Section 2(2) of the HMA, 1955.
6. The said application was decided by the Family Court and the divorce petition was dismissed by holding that the provisions of the HMA, 1955 do not extend to the Meena community, which is a notified Scheduled Tribe. The said order dated 28th November, 2020 is under challenge in the present petition.
Submissions of the Petitioner
7. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Jha submits that the Respondent had admitted in various pleadings that the marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs. Reference was placed upon the transfer petition filed before the Supreme Court, the complaint filed under the DV Act in Rajasthan, application filed by the Respondent under Section 125 CrPC, as also the FIR registered by the Respondent under Section 498A Indian Penal Code (hereinafter the “IPC”). He submitted that since the Respondent admitted that the marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu rites and customs, the provisions of HMA, 1955 would be fully applicable to the facts of the case and hence the divorce petition under the provisions of the HMA, 1955 ought to be maintainable.
8. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi and Ors. (2000) 8 SCC 587, specifically upon paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said judgment, to argue that in the said judgment it has been clearly held that if the members of tribes f
ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2015) 10 SCC 1
Dr. Surajmani Stella Kujur v. Durga Charan Hansdah and Anr.
John Vallamattom and Another v. Union of India
Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi and Ors. (2000) 8 SCC 587
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum
Ms. Jorden Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra
Ms Jordon Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India
Sarla Mudgal Vs. UOI AIR 1995 SC 1531
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India [(1995) 3 SCC 635: 1995 SCC (Cri) 569]
Uniform Civil Code - Applicability of Act, 1955 - For determination of civil rights, customs may be proved and can form basis - Insofar as divorce proceedings are concerned, if proper tribal customs ....
The Hindu Marriage Act applies to parties from Scheduled Tribes who follow Hindu customs, allowing them to seek divorce under its provisions.
Members of Scheduled Tribes who follow Hindu customs can invoke provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce, negating the exclusion principle under Section 2(2).
Members of Scheduled Tribe shall be governed by Hindu law in the matter of succession.
The Family Court erred in dismissing divorce application based solely on Scheduled Tribe status; potential for adjudication under the Hindu Marriage Act must be determined.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence to determine if the marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs, and the applicability of the Hindu Marriage....
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not apply to Scheduled Tribes absent a Central Government notification, rendering any solemnization under the Act void.
(1) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not apply to Scheduled Tribes.(2) Scheme of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is confined to marriages between two Hindus – Statutory conditions cannot be diluted by form o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of customary divorce by the community and the discretion of the court in granting a declaration of status under section 34 of the S....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.