JUDGMENT :

The instant Appeals have been preferred by the appellant/wife against the common judgment and decree dated 10.04.2024 made in HMOP No.362/2020 and IDOP 1762/2022 on the file of the Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, wherein the Family Court, Coimbatore, granted divorce in favour of the respondent/husband on the ground of cruelty.

2. The respondent/husband in this appeal, who married the appellant/wife on 08.06.2016, filed HMOP No.362/2020 before the Family Court, Coimbatore, under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955, to pass an order for dissolution of his marriage solemnised with appellant / wife on 08.06.2016 at Sri Venkateswara Thirumana Mandapam, Kondapanaickanpatti, Salem. The appellant/wife filed IDOP No.1762 of 2022 under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court, Coimbatore, by a common Order dated 10.04.2024, allowed HMOP No.362/2020 dissolving the marriage between the respondent/husband and the appellant/wife and dismissed IDOP No.1762 of 2022 filed by the appellant/wife for restitution of conjugal rights. Assailing the said common order passed by the Additional Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, the appellant/wife has preferred the present appeals before this Court.

3. There is no dispute that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 08.06.2016 at Sri Venkateswara Thirumana Mandapam, Kondapanaickanpatti, Salem. The respondent/husband sought for the relief of divorce in the Family Court against the appellant on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is the contention of the appellant/wife, inter alia, that the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are not applicable, since the respondent/husband belongs to Christian religion and the marriage was conducted as per Christian customs and rituals and therefore, they are not governed by Hindu Law. Her further contention is that, the materials on record amply prove that the marriage was solemnised as per Christian rites. She says that the marriage was performed by one Pastor Masiya Selvakumar, founder of Masiya Ministries and therefore, the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are not applicable to them and that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to grant a decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She has relied upon the marriage invitation which contains plus symbol and the marriage photo to prove that the marriage was held in accordance with the Christian rituals.

4. Therefore, in the light of the above, the primary contention of the appellant/wife in these appeals are that, since the respondent/husband is not a Hindu and is a Christian by religion, provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are not applicable to him and that the petition filed by the respondent/husband against her in the Family Court for divorce under the said Act, is not maintainable and in turn the Family Court has no jurisdiction to pass decree of divorce between the parties under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

5. Mr.B. Manoharan, the learned counsel for the appellant / wife would submit that the respondent / husband in spite of conferment of Schedule Caste Communal status, who is a Christian by religion, claims to be a Hindu for the purpose of employment would go against the very object of reservation and would amount to fraud on the constitution. His further contention is that, the 'marriage' dated 08.06.2016 between the parties is not a 'Hindu marriage' having regard to the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. To support his contentions, he relied on the following decisions:

1. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 754 (Dolly Rani vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal)

2. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3470 (C. Selvarani vs. Special Secretary cum District Collector and others).

Hence, the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, which warrants interference by this Court.

6. Whereas, the contention of