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 Act to parties following Hindu customs and traditions.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.

CM APPL. 46940/2021 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

C.R.P 102/2021 & CM APPL. 46939/2021 (for stay)

3. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21st September, 2021 passed by the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter "Trial Court") in HMA No.301/2018 titled Sh. Ajmera Ramalu v. Smt. B. Chandrakala. By the impugned order, the application filed by the Petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was rejected by the Trial Court. The Respondent-Wife (hereinafter "Wife") preferred a petition under Section 18(1)(i)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter "HMA"), seeking a decree of divorce against the Petitioner-Husband (hereinafter "Husband").

4. The case of the Wife is that her marriage was solemnised on 2nd February, 1998 at Ramagundam, District Paddapalli, Telangana as per Hindu rites and ceremonies, as both the Husband and Wife are Hindus. It was on this premise that the provisions of the HMA were invoked before the Trial Court, and a decree of divorce was sought by the Wife.

5. Before the Trial Court, the Husband filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, taking the preliminary ground that both the parties belong to the Lambadis (Banjara) community of Telangana/Andhra Pradesh, which has been notified as a Scheduled Tribe in the said territory. Accordingly, the case of the Husband is that the provisions of HMA would not be applicable to the present case. The application filed by the Husband has been rejected by the Trial Court.

6. By the impugned order, the Trial Court observed that the adjudication of the question as to whether the marriage between the Husband and the Wife was solemnized as per Hindu rites or not, as also whether the parties were Hindus or not, would require evidence to be led in this respect. Accordingly, the Trial Court held that the petition could not be rejected at this stage. The operative portion of the impugned order dated 21st September, 2021 reads as under:

"14. According to the above judgment if members of a tribe, voluntarily choose to follow Hindu customs, traditions and rites, they cannot be kept out of the kept out of the purview of the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

15. On bare reading of the statement of plaint, it cannot be rejected as it becomes disputed question as to whether the marriage was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites and customs or in accordance with Hindu rites and customs or in accordance with rituals/customs applicable to particular tribe to which the parties belong. The issue can be disposed of after framing of legal/preliminary issue and on the evidence of the parties."

7. Mr. Manoj Singh, ld. Counsel for the Husband, submits that though there are various judgments of the High Courts, including the recent judgment of this Court in Satprakash Meena vs. Alka Meena [C.R.P.1/2021 decided on 7th July, 2021], the present case is distinguishable on the ground that there is no evidence on record to show that the marriage between the parties was conducted and solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs. Thus, the judgment in Satprakash Meena (supra) would not be applicable.

8. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Wife submits that the petition filed before the Trial Court is clear to the effect that the marriage between the parties was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs. He further submits that the question as to whether the same is factually correct or not would require evidence to be adduced in respect thereof.

9. This Court has heard ld. Counsels for the parties. Both the Husband and Wife are well-settled professionals. The Wife is an IAS officer and the Husband is an Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

10. The Trial Court has rejected the