$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 3^rd June, 2021

Date of Decision: 07^th July, 2021

+

C.R.P.1/2021 and CM APPL. 332/2021

SATPRAKASH MEENA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. F.K. Jha, Advocate.

versus

ALKA MEENA

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Abhinav Gupta & Mr. Nitesh

Ranjan, Advocates.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

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 24^th 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,

1955was filed by the Petitioner on 2^nd December, 2015, before the Principal

Digitally Signed By:DINESH

SINGH NAYAL

Signing Date:08.07.2021

19:25:20

Signature Not Verified

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

Digitally Signed By:DINESH

SINGH NAYAL

Signing Date:08.07.2021

19:25:20

Signature Not Verified

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

rites and customs. Reference was placed upon the transfer petition filed before

the Supreme Court, the complaint filed under the DV Act in Rajasthan,

application filed by the Respondent under Section 125 CrPC, as also the FIR

registere