The Chhattisgarh high court has set aside a Family Court order that rejected a mutual-consent divorce petition solely because the husband is a member of a Scheduled Tribe, holding that the exclusion in Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is protective in nature and cannot be used as a threshold bar where the parties themselves assert and demonstrate that they married and live under Hindu customs. In FA(MAT) No. 344 of 2025, decided on 3 March 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma ruled that the couple’s petition under Section 13B was maintainable and remitted the matter to the Family Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur, for a decision on merits.

Background of the case

The appeal arose from a judgment and decree dated 12 August 2025 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur, in Civil Suit No. 11A/2025. The appellants are the wife, Smt. Gudiya Nagesh, and the husband, Muniraj Mandavi. The wife belongs to a Scheduled Caste, while the husband belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. Their marriage was solemnised on 15 April 2009, and they have a son, Jaynil Mandavi, born on 28 December 2011, who resides with the wife. The parties stated that they have been living separately since 6 April 2014. They jointly moved an application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. In their pleadings and statements before the Family Court, they stated that their marriage was performed according to Hindu customs and ceremonies, including saptpadi, and that they follow Hindu customs rather than the customs of their respective communities. Despite this, the Family Court rejected the application, holding that by virtue of Section 2(2) of the 1955 Act, the Act does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government issues a notification directing otherwise. Therefore, it held that a petition under Section 13B could not be entertained.

Appellants’ arguments

Counsel for the appellants argued that the Family Court erred in rejecting the petition on its own motion by invoking Section 2(2). The core submission was that the husband, though a Scheduled Tribe member, had stated that the parties follow Hindu customs and that the marriage was solemnised according to Hindu rites and rituals, including saptpadi. On that basis, the appellants contended that they had become “Hinduised,” and the Family Court could not deny them access to the statutory remedy of mutual-consent divorce under Section 13B.

Response of respondents

The high court record reflects that an amicus curiae, Senior Advocate Manoj Paranjpe, assisted the court. The amicus supported the appellants’ position, emphasising that the parties’ admitted case was that the marriage was solemnised in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, including saptpadi. It was submitted that the Family Court should not have entered into the question of the applicability of Section 2(2) to non-suit the parties at the threshold when the husband had voluntarily chosen Hindu customs, traditions, and rites. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi and the Delhi high court decision in Ajmera Ramulu v. B Chandrakala, with a request that the matter be sent back for a fresh decision on merits.

HC’s analysis

The high court framed the central issue as whether the Family Court was justified in holding that Section 13B would not apply because the husband belongs to a Scheduled Tribe, thereby attracting the exclusion under Section 2(2) of the 1955 Act. The Bench reproduced Section 2(2), which states that nothing in the Act applies to members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of Article 366(25) of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs. The court noted the constitutional definition of “Scheduled Tribes” and its linkage to Article 342 and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The court then turned to the jurisprudence on “Hinduised” tribal persons. It noted that the word “Hindu” is not defined in the statutes and relied on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Labishwar Manjhi, where the Court held that when evidence shows that parties belonging to a Scheduled Tribe are following Hindu traditions and customs and are substantially Hinduised, the statutory exclusion does not operate to keep them outside the codified Hindu law framework. The high court treated Labishwar Manjhi as establishing that where parties originally belonging to a Scheduled Tribe have adopted Hindu customs, they cannot be relegated to customary fora when they themselves admit adherence to Hindu rites and traditions. The Bench also discussed the distinct socio-legal space of tribal marriage and the constitutional recognition of tribal customs, observing that Section 2(2) expressly acknowledges that Scheduled Tribe members are not governed by the Act unless notified otherwise. However, it emphasised—citing Ajmera Ramulu v. B Chandrakala and Chittapuli v. Union Government—that Section 2(2) functions as a measure of protection, not exclusion. The court adopted the proposition that a notified tribe member can refuse to participate in proceedings under the Act by asserting tribal status and adherence to tribal customs, but the provision cannot bar a Hinduised tribal person from invoking the Act, particularly where the spouse is a non-tribal Hindu. Applying these principles, the high court found it “quite vivid” that the husband is a “tribal Hindu” and the wife a “non-tribal Hindu,” and that their marriage was solemnised as per Hindu customs, rites, and traditions, including saptpadi, as reflected in the pleadings and statements. Since the husband voluntarily chose to follow Hindu customs and the parties asserted that they follow Hindu traditions, the court held that they could not be denied the Act’s remedies or pushed to customary courts. The Family Court’s reliance on Section 2(2) to reject the petition at the threshold was therefore held to be erroneous.

Legal significance

The ruling clarifies that Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is intended to preserve and protect tribal customary laws and autonomy, not to prevent Scheduled Tribe members—who voluntarily adopt Hindu rites and present themselves as governed by Hindu customs—from accessing codified matrimonial remedies. The judgment also reinforces that maintainability cannot be defeated merely on the basis of tribal status when the parties’ own pleadings and evidence show a Hindu customary marriage under Section 7, including saptpadi, and an expressed choice to follow Hindu traditions.

Final order

The high court allowed the appeal, set aside the Family Court’s judgment and decree dated 12 August 2025, and remitted the matter to the Family Court to decide the Section 13B application on its own merits, expeditiously and in accordance with law. It directed that a decree be drawn accordingly and recorded its appreciation for the assistance of the amicus curiae.

Key takeaways from the judgment

Why this matters

The decision directly affects access to statutory matrimonial remedies for inter-community couples where one spouse is a Scheduled Tribe member but the marriage and marital life are asserted to be governed by Hindu customs. By treating Section 2(2) as a protective provision rather than a blanket exclusion, the high court’s approach prevents the denial of a codified legal forum in cases where parties themselves seek relief under the Hindu Marriage Act and claim to have adopted Hindu rites and traditions. It ensures that maintainability is assessed in light of the parties’ pleaded and admitted marital form and practices, rather than status alone.