Based on the provided legal document, the following key points are relevant:

1. The marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs, and both parties are members of a scheduled tribe within the meaning of Article 366, clause 25 of the Constitution of India. However, since there is no notification issued by the Central Government under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Act does not apply to members of the scheduled tribes unless otherwise directed (!) (!) .

2. The court acknowledged that the marriage was conducted as per Hindu customs, but due to the absence of a Central Government notification, the Hindu Marriage Act is not applicable for the dissolution of such marriages involving scheduled tribes. The marriage continues to be governed by customary tribal laws and practices (!) (!) .

3. The issue of whether the marriage was "Hinduised" through customs and rites was discussed, but the court clarified that mere performance of Hindu customs does not constitute conversion to Hinduism. Conversion involves a conscious abandonment of tribal customs and adoption of Hindu religion, which was not established in this case (!) (!) .

4. The court emphasized that the exclusion of scheduled tribes from the application of the Hindu Marriage Act is explicitly based on ethnicity and not on religious conversion. Since no notification has been issued by the Central Government, the marriage is not subject to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act for its dissolution (!) (!) .

5. The findings regarding cruelty are supported by evidence, but the allegations of desertion are not proved. Nevertheless, the court held that the suit for divorce was not maintainable because of the legal bar created by Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act concerning scheduled tribes (!) (!) .

6. The court also noted the importance of considering the customs and usages of scheduled tribes in the context of marriage registration and dissolution, suggesting that the absence of statutory records for customary divorces can complicate legal proceedings (!) .

7. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the suit for divorce was dismissed on the ground that the Hindu Marriage Act was not applicable due to the statutory exclusion of scheduled tribes, even though the marriage was conducted according to Hindu rites (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.