Hindu Marriage Act Applies To Jain Community: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Family Court Order Rejecting Divorce

Rejecting the rationale applied by the Family Court, the division bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar in its order observed:

“The present day society is fragmented on religion, caste, sects, origin and language. Learned Additional Principal Judge attempted to find out the differences between the religious practices of followers of Hindu religion and that of the Jaina community, to bolster his conclusion that religious practice and customs especially regarding marriage are distinguishable. However, the practices stated in the impugned order itself show that the marriage rituals performed by followers of both the communities are generally similar. The learned Additional Principal Judge ought to have applied the explicit legal provisions to the matter under consideration rather than engaging in scholarly interpretation of rituals and practices of Jaina community.”

Referring to the provisions of the HMA the court said that it is applicable to all the persons, "who are Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion". It said that Section 2(3)fortifies the applicability of HMA to the members of Jaina community; however these express provisions of the law were "unfortunately not considered in the correct perspective" by the family court. 

The Court further observed:

“The founders of the Constitution of India and the Legislature in their collective wisdom have integrated the Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina and Sikh for application of the Hindu Marriage Act. Both the parties had pleaded that they married according to Hindu rituals and customs. There was no occasion for learned Additional Principal Judge to substitute his own views and perceptions against the express provisions of the law. If the concerned Court was satisfied that the case pending before it involves a question as to operability of provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act to the members of Jaina community, it could have referred the case for opinion of High Court under the proviso to Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.”

Background

The  court was considering an appeal under Section 19(1) of The Family Courts Act challenging the family court's order wherein a plea under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act was returned concluding that the provisions of the HMA do not apply to the members of the Jain Community.

The Appellant and the Respondent got married in 2017 according to Hindu rituals and customs. Due to marital discord, the Respondent left her matrimonial home and started living with her parents. After living separately for the six years, they filed a petition under Section 13B HMA for dissolution of marriage. However, the Family Court, returned the petition for prosecuting the same in accordance with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act.

The Family Court referred to a 2014 Ministry of Minority Affairs' notification wherein Jain community was notified as a minority community. The family court compared the religious practices of the members of Jain community with that of the Hindu religion and concluded that the practices followed by members of Jain community are distinguishable, specially, with regard to the marriage. Thus, mentioning the distinctive features of the customs and rituals practiced by the members of Jain community, the family court concluded that members of Jain community are not bound by Hindu Law and so HMA is not applicable to the members of Jain community. It had however granted liberty to the parties to apply for dissolution of marriage under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. This order was challenged before the high court.

Findings

On applicability of HMA to members of Jain community, the High Court noted that the family court attempted to point out the differences between the religious practices of Hindu religion and that of the Jain community, to bolster its conclusion that religious practice and customs especially regarding marriage are distinguishable.

The bench referred to Explanation II of Article 25 of the Constitution which clearly states, “…the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion…”

The bench further referred to The Hindu Marriage Validity Act, 1949 which was passed to validate all the existing marriages between Hindus, Sikhs and Jain and their different castes sub-castes and sects. Section 2 of the Act also defines “Hindu” as including the persons professing Sikh or Jain religion.

Thereafter, the Court referred to Section 2(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which clearly states that the Act is applicable to any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion. 

With regard to notification relied upon by the Family Court, the bench noted that the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (c) of Section 2 of the National Commission for Minorities Act notified the Jain community as a minority community in addition to the already notified five minority communities–Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Zoroastrians (Parsis), for the purpose of the Act.

“This notification recognises Jaina community as a minority community. It does not amend, invalidate or supersede express provision of any existing laws. No corresponding amendments have been made to exclude the members of Jaina community from application of any existing law,” the Court said.

Thus, the bench concluded that Family Court had committed a grave illegality in concluding that the provisions of HMA are not applicable to the members of Jain Community.

Setting aside the order the bench directed the Family Court to proceed with the Section 13B HMA Petition in accordance with law.

Case Title: X versus Y

First Appeal No. 263 Of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order