2011 Supreme(Gau) 545
MADAN B.LOKUR, A.K.GOSWAMI
Anom Apang – Appellant
Versus
Geeta Singh – Respondent
Advocates Appeared:
S.S.Dey, M.Nath, D.P.Borah, for Appellant, D.R.Gogi, T.Michi, P.D.Nair, for Respondents.
Judgement Key Points
- The appellant husband belongs to the Adi Tribe in Arunachal Pradesh, while the respondent wife is a Hindu; they married in 1991 in Pasighat, Arunachal Pradesh, and have three children. [14000197700001]
- The wife filed a petition for divorce under Section 12 read with Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty by the husband. [14000197700002]
- The husband contested, claiming the marriage was under Adi customary law and that as a Scheduled Tribe member, the Act does not apply to him. [14000197700003]
- The trial court framed issues on maintainability, cause of action, marriage solemnization (Hindu rites vs. tribal custom), cruelty, and entitlement to relief. [14000197700004] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Trial court found the suit maintainable, marriage per Adi tribal customs, cause of action and cruelty established, granting judicial separation under Section 13-A; children with wife, time for rapprochement. [14000197700005][14000197700006]
- Appeal challenges jurisdiction under the Act due to tribal custom marriage and later Scheduled Tribe recognition via Act No. 10 of 2003 amending Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, invoking Section 2(2). [14000197700007][14000197700008]
- Section 2(2) of the Act excludes Scheduled Tribes unless notified otherwise. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- The Act applies to Hindu marriages; key factor is parties' status and manner of solemnization at marriage time, not later changes. [14000197700010]
- At marriage (1991) and petition filing (2002), husband deemed Hindu under Section 2(1)(c) as domiciled in India, not Muslim/Christian/Parsi/Jew, and not proven exempt from Hindu law/custom; Adi tribe Scheduled Tribe status post-2003 irrelevant. [14000197700013][14000197700014]
- Marriage under Act (including customary law then), so court retains jurisdiction despite later Scheduled Tribe status; focus on solemnization manner, not later personal status. [14000197700015][14000197700017]
- Appeal dismissed; no merit. [14000197700018]
Madan B. Lokur, C.J. :-
The appellant is aggrieved by a judgment and decree dated 6-4-2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Dhemaji in T. S. (D) No. 2 of 2005.
2. The appellant husband belongs to the Adi Tribe in Arunachal Pradesh while the respondent wife is a Hindu. They were married in 1991 in Pasighat (Arunachal Pradesh). The parties have three children born from the wedlock.
3. The respondent wife alleged that the appellant husband treated her with cruelty and therefore she filed a petition for a divorce under Section 12 read with 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act).
4. The appellant husband contested the proceedings and stated that the parties were married according to the Adi customary law. It was also contended that the appellant husband belongs to a Scheduled Tribe and the provisions of the Act were not applicable to him.
5. On these broad pleadings, the learned District Judge framed the following issues:-
"(1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
(2) Whether there is a cause of action, for the suit?
(3) Whether the marriage was solemnized in accordance with Hindu Religious Rites or in accordance with Tribal Customary Practice?
(4) Whether the petiti
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
