HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 59/2021

Sunil S/o Devi Lal, by caste Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o

26-27, Shivnagar-A, Near SKIT College, Ramnagariya Jagatpura,

Jaipur

----Petitioner

Versus

Kritika Paliwal W/o Sunil, D/o Shri Krishan Chandra Paliwal, by

caste Paliwal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Quarter No. 5 Type 3

Postal Colony, Barmer. At Present C/o Dr. Saroj Paliwal Hospital,

Near Mother Teresa School, Balotra Tehsil Pachpadra, District

Barmer.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Sravan Saini

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Manish Tak

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

Order

15/03/2022

The instant revision petition has been filed by husband

being aggrieved by the order dated 15.4.2021 passed by the

learned Additional District Judge No.1, Barmer in Civil Misc. Case

No. 94/2015 (07/2014), whereby application under Section 2(2)

of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by

him during proceedings under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act

was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

Petitioner – wife preferred a petition under Section 13

of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage against

the husband with the averment that she is Paliwal by caste and

(2 of 6)

[CR-59/2021]

respondent – husband is by caste Meena. The provisions of Hindu

Marriage Act are applicable for them. There was love affair

between them since 2005. After that she realized the ill-behavour

of the petitioner, she tried to keep distance from the petitioner.

Then the respondent started to make mental and psychological

pressures on respondent and they got married in the year 2011 in

Arya Samaj Temple, Jaipur. Petitioner – wife. Alleging some

incidents of cruelty committed against her, she filed the petition

under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage

solemnized between them on 14.2.2011.

In reply to the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, respondent admitted averments regarding caste of

the parties and applicability of the provisions of Hindu Marriage

Act on them. However, he denied the allegations of cruelty levelled

against the respondent.

After framing of issues, on 4.3.2016 evidence of

petitioner side was started. However, during cross-examination an

application was filed by the respondent – revisionist herein to the

effect that he is Meena by caste and member of Scheduled Tribe

category. Therefore, the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act are not

applicable in the matter. The said application was rejected by the

impugned order upholding that marriage was solemnized between

the parties in Arya Samaj Temple and not as per customs of the

Scheduled Tribe. Only one member belongs to Scheduled Tribe.

Learned trial court was of the opinion that the petition for

dissolution of marriage is maintainable under the provisions of

Hindu Marriage Act. Hence, the application filed by the respondent

(3 of 6)

[CR-59/2021]

under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 2(2) of Hindu

Marriage Act was rejected.

Aggrieved against the above order, this revision petition

has been filed by the respondent - husband. The application was

contested by the petitioner – wife by filing reply.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record.

While relying on the judgment of Jharkhand High Court

in the matter of Rajendra Kumar Singh Munda vs. Smt.

Mamta Devi : FA No.186/2008 decided on 20.8.2015 and

judgment of Tripura High Court in the matter of Smt. Rupa

Debbarma vs. Sri Tapash Debbarma : MAT APP 06 of 2018,

learned counsel for the respondent – revisionist herein submits

that one of the party to the marriage is a member of Scheduled

Tribe. Hence, the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act are not

applicable on them and the learned trial court committed error in

rejecting his application.

On the other hand, learned counsel fo