SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Gau) 545

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Madan B.Lokur,A.K.Goswami, JJ.
Anom Apang -Appellant
Versus
Geeta Singh -Resopndent
MAT. APR 12 of 2006
Decided On : 23-06-2011

Advocates Appeared:
S.S.Dey, M.Nath, D.P.Borah, for Appellant, D.R.Gogi, T.Michi, P.D.Nair, for Respondents.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 366 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 12 and 13 - Husband treated her with cruelty - Offence of Divorce - Section District Judge concluded that suit was maintainable - With regard to issue it was that parties were married according to tribal customs - With regard to Issue it was held that there is cause of action in favor of respondent wife and that activities of appellant husband amounted to cruelty – Held, Alternative submission of counsel for appellant husband is that after when Tribe was recognized as Scheduled Tribe by virtue of Constitution Scheduled Tribes Order Trial Judge ceased to have any jurisdiction in matter by virtue Section Act - In our opinion alternative submission cannot stand even moments scrutiny - As court have already observed earlier what is required to be seen is not person or personality involved but manner in which marriage was solemnized - In this case since marriage was solemnized in terms of Act which included customary law at relevant time Trial Judge would not cease to have jurisdiction to continue with matter only because appellant husband became member of Scheduled Tribes in terms of Constitution Scheduled Tribes Order - Petition dismissed

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 petitioner was treated with cruelty by the respondent as alleged?

(5) Whether the petitioner is entitled to reliefs as prayed for?"

6. With regard to the 1st issue, the learned District Judge concluded that the suit was maintainable. With regard to issue No.3, it was held that the parties were married ac­cording to the Adi tribal customs. With re­gard to Issue Nos. 2 and 4, it was held that there is a cause of action in favour of the respondent wife and that the activities of the appellant husband amounted to cruelty.

7. Accordingly, while deciding Issue No. 5, it was held by the learned Trial Judge that the respondent wife is entitled to an alterna­tive relief of a decree of judicial separation under Section 13-A of the Act. With regard to the children born from the wedlock, it was held that time should be given to the parties for a rapprochement. The children, we are told, are living with the respondent wife.

8. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant hus­band has filed this matrimonial appeal chal­lenging the decree of judicial separation passed by the learned Trial Judge.

9. The main submission (and in fact the only submission) of learned counsel for the appellant husband is that the parties were admittedly married according to the Adi cus­tomary law and not according to Hindu rites and therefore, the Trial Judge had no juris­diction to entertain the petition under the pro­visions of the Act. Alternatively, it is sub­mitted that even if the learned Trial Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the matter, on the promulgation of Act No. 10 of 2003 passed on 8th January, 2003, the Constitu­tion (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 was amended thereby including the Adi Tribe from Arunachal Pradesh as a Scheduled Tribe. As such, in terms of Section 2(2) of the Act, the Trial Judge had no jurisdiction to continue with the matter in so far as the appellant husband is concerned.

10. Section 2 of the Act (we are really concerned with Section 2(2)) reads as fol­lows :

"2. Application of Act.- (1) This Act applies-

(a) to any person who is a Hindu by reli­gion in any of its forms or developments, including a Virashaiva, Lingayat or a fol­lower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj,

(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion, and

(c) to any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by re­ligion, unless it is proved that any such per­son would not have been governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in respect of any of the matters dealt with herein if this Act had not been passed.

Explanation.- The following persons are Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas or Sikhs by reli­gion, as the case may be-

(a) any child, legitimate or illegitimate, both of whose parents are Hindus, Buddhists




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top