ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 15.03.2017, in I.A.No.27 of 2016 in F.C.O.P.No.249 of 2015 on the file of XV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Miyapur.

2. The question in this petition is as to the applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) in respect of the parties, who belong to the ‘Yerukala’ community.

3. The marriage of the petitioner-Dr.B.Swapna and the respondent-Dr.B.Gnaneshwar was held on 03.11.2011 at YSR Gardens, Near Housing Board Colony, Hyderabad Chowrastha, Bhongir, Nalgonda District as per Hindu rites and customs. Both the parties are doctors by profession and they belong to ‘Yerukala’ community. The respondent filed petition seeking divorce under Section 13-1 (ia) of the Act in F.C.O.P.No.249 of 2015. While so, the petitioner filed application in I.A.No.27 of 2016 under Order VII Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “C.P.C.”) stating that they belong to ‘Yerukala’ community and as per Section 2(2) of the Act “notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution, unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs” and therefore, the petition filed seeking divorce by the respondent is barred under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C. The respondent resisted the application by way of filing counter affidavit.

4. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court stating that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 applies to all the persons, who are Hindu by religion, but not all castes.

5. The said order, dated 15.03.2017, is under challenge in this revision.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the respondent belong to ‘Yerukala’ community and as such, the Act is not applicable in view of exclusion under Section 2(2) of the Act. Therefore, he submits that the divorce petition filed by the respondent is barred under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Dr.Surajmani Stella Kujur v. Durga Charan Hansdah, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 938 .

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that undisputedly, the marriage of the parties was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs. As such, she cannot claim the benefit of Section 2(2) of the Act. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for rejection of the petition for divorce. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Satprakash Meena v. Alka Meena, (Delhi) 2021 (3) R.C.R. (criminal) 809.

8. Thus, after hearing the submissions of both the counsel, the point that arises for consideration is; whether the order under revision is correct, legal and proper?

9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this revision, it is necessary to refer the relevant provisions of Section 2 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Section 2 (2) of the Act, reads as follows:

"2. Application of Act.- (1) xxxx

(a) xxx xxx

(b) xxx xxx

(c) xxx xxx

Explanation.- xxx xxx

(a) xxx xxx

(b) xxx xxx

(c) xxx xxx

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs."

10. A plain reading of Section 2(2) of the Act, shows the non-applicability of the Act to the members of any Scheduled Tribe unless the Central Government, by notification in the official Gazette, otherwise directs. Article 366 of the Constitution defines the expression and meaning of the word Scheduled Tribe which says, "Scheduled Tribes" means such tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups