Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 2263
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J
Satprakash Meena – Appellant
Versus
Alka Meena – Respondent
C.R.P. 1/2021 | CM APPL. 332/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: F.K. Jha
For the Respondents: Abhinav Gupta, Nitesh Ranjan
Members of a Scheduled Tribe who voluntarily and consistently follow Hindu rites, customs, and ceremonies in their marriage fall within the ambit of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and are not excluded by the provisions of Section 2(2).
Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 2(2) - Applicability to Scheduled Tribes - Exclusion clause - Interpretation of - The provision excludes members of any Scheduled Tribe from the application of the Act unless a notification is issued by the Central Government - However, members of a tribe who are Hinduized and follow Hindu rites, customs, and ceremonies are not excluded from the scope of the Act. (Paras 23, 24, 42)
(B) Personal Law - Uniform Civil Code - Need for legislative intervention - Constitution of India - Article 44 - The continued absence of a uniform law on marriage and divorce for all citizens leads to conflicts in personal laws, causing hardship to individuals - The court emphasized that the legislature should act on the directive principles to ensure uniformity and eliminate disparate practices. (Paras 50-57)
Facts of the case:
The parties were members of a notified tribal community. A divorce petition was filed under the Hindu Marriage Act by the husband. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that the parties, being members of a Scheduled Tribe, were specifically excluded from the application of the statute under Section 2(2) of the Act, rendering the petition not maintainable without evidence regarding the applicability of custom.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the parties had consistently admitted to performing their marriage according to Hindu rites, customs, and ceremonies, including the Saptapadi and rituals before the fire. Held, that voluntary adoption of Hindu practices by tribal members brings them within the fold of the Hindu Marriage Act, as they are considered "Hinduized," thus negating the exclusion clause under Section 2(2).
Issues: Whether the members of a Scheduled Tribe who follow Hindu marriage rites and ceremonies are excluded from the application of the Hindu Marriage Act by virtue of Section 2(2) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Where parties belonging to a community otherwise excluded from a statute voluntarily adopt and follow the customs, rites, and traditions of that statute, they cannot claim the benefit of the exclusion clause. Principles of personal law must be applied based on the actual conduct and practice of the parties to ensure legal safeguards are not denied to citizens who profess those customs.
Result: Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment set aside and the trial court directed to adjudicate the petition on merits.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicability of hma to tribal communities and procedural status of the ex-parte divorce petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 23 , 24) |
| 2. the principle of 'hinduisation' renders tribal marriages governed by hma. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 3. analysis of conflicting high court precedents regarding tribal exemptions under section 2(2) of hma. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 4. evidence of adhering to hindu rites precludes exclusion under tribal exemption clauses. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 5. constitutional mandate for a uniform civil code to resolve personal law conflicts. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 6. setting aside the dismissal of the divorce petition and directing trial on merits. (Para 58) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. The question in this petition is as to the applicability of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as the “HMA, 1955”), in respect of the parties who belong to the Meena community in view of the exclusion under Section 2(2) of the HMA, 1955.
2. The Petitioner – Mr. Satprakash Meena and the Respondent- Ms. Alka Meena got married on 24th June, 2012. According to the Petitioner, the marriage was solemnized in Jaipur, Rajasthan, as per Hindu rites and customs. Both the parties belong to the Meena community and the same is an admitted position. The Petitioner is an engineer who is working in Delhi and the Respondent is stated to be a house maker. The parties have a minor child namely Master Lakshya, who was born on 12th April, 2013 in Delhi.
3. A petition seeking divorce under Section 13-1(ia) of the HMA, 1955 was filed by the Petitioner on 2nd December, 2015, before the Principal Judge (West), Family Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi. The Respondent did not appear in the said petition. There is a dispute as to whether the Respondent was served or not. The Respondent, however, preferred a transfer petition being Alka Meena v. Satprakash Meena [Transfer Petition Civil No. 1671/2016] before the Supreme Court. In the said transfer petition, according to the Petitioner, the Respondent took a categorical stand that the marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu rites and customs. Vide order dated 6th April, 2017, the transfer petition was disposed of, however, the Respondent was permitted to avail of the facility to participate in the proceedings through video conferencing.
4. An FIR was lodged by the Respondent under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter the “DV Act”) as also an application seeking maintenance, under Section 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter the “CrPC”) in the city of Jaipur.
5. In the divorce petition, since the Respondent did not appear, she was proceeded ex-parte. However, after she was permitted to participate in the proceedings through video conferencing by the Supreme Court (in the transfer petition), she filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “the CPC”) before the Family Court. In the said application she prayed for rejection of the divorce petition, on the ground that the provisions of the HMA, 1955 do not apply to the parties concerned as they are members of a notified Scheduled Tribe in Rajasthan, and hence the HMA, 1955 would not be applicable to the case of the said parties in view of Section 2(2) of the HMA, 1955.
6. The said application was decided by the Family Court and the divorce petition was dismissed by holding that the provisions of the HMA, 1955 do not extend to the Meena community, which is a notified Scheduled Tribe. The said order dated 28th November, 2020 is under challenge in the present petition.
Submissions of the Petitioner
7. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Jha submits that the Respondent had admitted in various pleadings that the marriage was solemnized as per Hindu ri
