IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 8 OF JANUARY, 2026

CIVIL REVISION No. 1374 of 2025

SHRIMATI PREMLATA MARKAM

Versus

SHRIMATI SAROJ MARKAM AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Ravindra Kumar Bisen - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER

The present revision has been filed under Section 388 Indian

Succession Act, 1925 arising out of the order dated 05.11.2022 passed by the trial Court as confirmed in appeal by the appellate Court vide order dated 23.07.2025. Both the Courts have concurrently rejected the application for

grant of succession certificate filed by the present petitioner.

2. The present petitioner had filed an application for succession

certificate under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act seeking succession certificate for various purposes upon death of late Shri Laxmikant Markam,

who was stated to be husband of the present petitioner.

3. Admittedly, the said Laxmikant Markam was serving in Water

Resources Department and he was earlier married to the respondent No.4- Srimati Anjula alias Anjali Markam and this marriage having taken place with Respondent No.4 was an admitted fact. The contention of the petitioner was that there was marriage of deceased with respondent No.4 but on

22.02.2009 there was a divorce between the deceased and respondent No.4 as per social traditions and then on 10.07.2011 the deceased married the present petitioner.

4. Both the Courts have concurrently held that there was no divorce by a decree of competent Court between the respondent No.4 and the deceased, and he remained married with the respondent No. 4. The marriage of the petitioner with the deceased was a marriage during lifetime of the first wife and was invalid, therefore have refused to grant succession certificate to the petitioner.

5. The petitioner had raised a plea that the deceased and the petitioner belong to Gond tribe and as per the social traditions of Gond tribe, the divorce took place as per the social traditions.

6. However, as held by the appellate Court, the petitioner failed to prove any such social traditions before the trial Court that in the tribe to which the parties belong, there is a tradition to enter into second marriage during lifetime of first wife and that polygamy is permitted and also that whether there is a tradition of divorce in the manner in which it has been stated to have taken place. The respondent No. 4 had appeared before the trial Court and submitted that the alleged stamp paper on which the divorce deed has been written contains her signatures but those signatures were obtained on blank stamp papers by her husband and she has not entered into any second marriage.

7. In the present case, the first question that arises for determination is whether Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 would not apply to the petitioner and her deceased husband in view of Section 2(2) of Hindu Marriage Act. Heavy reliance was placed on judgement of Coordinate Bench in W.P. No.3494/2015. However, the aforesaid issue has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi, (2000) 8 SCC 587, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court held that mechanically the provisions of Hindu Law cannot be excluded to Schedule Tribes. It has to be proved that the concerned Tribe has not been "Hinduised" or that its customs and traditions are different from the religions to which Hindu Marriage Act applies i.e. Hindu, Sikh, Jain and Buddhist religions, which have similar sets of societal traditions. The Hon'ble Court held that in the absence of proving different sets of customs and traditions, the Tribals cannot simply seek relaxation from the provisions of the act governed by Hindu Law. The Hon'ble Apex Court ultimately held that Santhals would not be excluded from operation of Hindu Succession Act, because nothing has been proved that the said Tribe has not been Hinduised. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal is directed against