S.2(2) HMA | Substantially 'Hinduised' Tribes Cannot Be Relegated To Customary Courts For Attaining Divorce Decree: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has held that when recognized Tribes have admitted following Hindu traditions and Customs, and jointly file a petition under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage, the Court cannot relegate them to customary Courts citing the bar created by section 2(2) of the Act.Section 2(2) of the HMA says that nothing contained in the Act...
The Telangana High Court has held that when recognized Tribes have admitted following Hindu traditions and Customs, and jointly file a petition under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage, the Court cannot relegate them to customary Courts citing the bar created by section 2(2) of the Act.
Section 2(2) of the HMA says that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to Schedule Tribes. Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty relying on Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi, Satprakash Meena v. Alka Meena and Chittapuli v. Union Government, held:
“Section 2(2) of the Act are meant to protect customary practices of recognized Tribes. However, if the parties are following Hindu traditions, customs and that they are substantially Hinduised, they cannot be relegated to customary Courts, that too, when they themselves admit that they are following Hindu rites, customs and traditions.”
The order was passed by Justice Alishetty in a Civil Revision Petition filed by both the parties, aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, by way of which, the petition filed by the parties for attaining a mutual consent divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act was returned for want of jurisdiction citing the bar as created by section 2(2) of the Act.
The Bench noted that no objections were raised to the petition and even the proof of marriage filed by the parties show that the marriage was solemnized following the Hindu Rites, including 'Saptapadi'.
“There is no challenge to the contentions of the petitioner and the respondent that they have been following the Hindu traditions and customs. In fact, in the petition filed under Section 13(B) of the Act, the petitioner and the respondents specifically contended that their marriage was solemnized as per the rights and customs of Hindu Community. Further, the material filed by the petitioner i.e., wedding card and photographs shows that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized as per the Hindu Customs.”
Thus the order passed by the Trial Court was set aside. The Trial Court was directed to number the petition and decide it in accordance with law.
Lastly, Justice Alishetty has reiterated that the facts and circumstances of each case are different and the judgment does not express any general opinion on the interpretation of Section 2(2) of the Act.
“The Court concerned shall deal with the said issue in accordance with law as per the facts and circumstances of each case and decide the same, duly taking into consideration the material placed on record in support/proof of their contention that they are following Hindu customs, traditions and that they are substantially Hinduised.”
Case Title: Kadavath Srikanth vs Kadavath Ashwitha
Case no.: CRP 3413 of 2023
Counsel for the petitioner: T. Srujan Kumar Reddy