IMPORTANT POINT
The Hindu Marriage Act applies to parties from Scheduled Tribes who follow Hindu customs, allowing them to seek divorce under its provisions.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Kamareddy, in CFR No.630 of 2023, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’), for decree of Divorce by Mutual Consent by dissolving the marriage dated 23.05.2019 of the petitioner and respondent, was returned for want of jurisdiction.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife and they belong to Lambada Caste (Scheduled Tribe Community). Their marriage was solemnized on 23.05.2019, as per the rights and customs prevailed in Hindu Community. The respondent lived with the petitioner for a period of one year and thereafter, disputes arose between them, therefore, the respondent left the society of the petitioner on 21.06.2020. The elders and well wishers of the petitioner and the respondent tried to reconcile the issues between the parties so that they can lead a happy conjugal life, but, in vain. Thus, both the petitioner and the respondent decided to dissolve their marriage mutually and have taken a customary divorce on 22.06.2023 in the presence of the elders of both parties, by entering into an agreement.

3. As per the said agreement dated 22.06.2023, the petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- as full and final settlement towards permanent alimony to the respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 22.06.2023 and Rs.4,00,000/- on 27.06.2023. The balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was agreed to be given to the respondent after dissolution of their marriage. As per the said agreement, gold and silver, household and kitchen articles were also returned to the respondent. Similarly, the respondent had also given 25 grams of gold to the petitioner.

4. The petitioner and the respondent have jointly filed a petition under Section 13 (B) of the Act, for dissolution of their marriage solemnized on 23.05.2019 vide CFR No.630 of 2023 and the trial Court returned the said petition for want of jurisdiction in terms of Section 2(2) of the Act vide the impugned order dated 22.08.2023. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. This Court, on 23.11.2023, appointed Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, to assist this Court.

6. Heard Sri T. Srunjan Kumar Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the petitioner and the respondent belong to Lambada Caste (Scheduled Tribe Community), and their marriage was solemnized as per the customs and traditions of Hindu Community including the custom of “saptapadi” etc. He further contended that the petitioner and the respondent jointly filed the petition under Section 13(B) of the Act specifically contending that they are following Hindu traditions and customs. Thus, the trial Court ought not to have returned the petition, on the ground that it was not maintainable as per Section 2(2) of the Act. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the impugned order.

8. In support of the said contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments in Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi, (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 587, Dr. Surajhmani Stell Kujjur v. Durga Charan Hansdah, (2001) 3 SCC 13, Satprakash Meena v. Alka Meena, 2021 Supreme (Del) 389.

9. Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, the learned Amicus Curiae, has referred to the judgment of this Court in B. Swapna v. B. Gnaneswar, 2023 (3) ALD 73 and the judgment of the Tripura High Court in Rupa Debbarma v. Tapash Debbarma, MAT. APP 6 of 2018 apart from the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. Though the learned Amicus Curiae referred to some more judgments, this Court is of the view that there is no necessity to refer to all