I am a tribal man, can I seek mutual divorce from my SC wife? Chhattisgarh high court says yes

The Chhattisgarh precocious tribunal has acceptable speech a Family Court bid that rejected a mutual-consent divorcement petition solely due to the fact that the hubby is simply a subordinate of a Scheduled Tribe, holding that the exclusion successful Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is protective successful quality and cannot beryllium utilized arsenic a threshold barroom wherever the parties themselves asseverate and show that they joined and unrecorded nether Hindu customs. In FA(MAT) No. 344 of 2025, decided connected 3 March 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma ruled that the couple’s petition nether Section 13B was maintainable and remitted the substance to the Family Court, Bastar astatine Jagdalpur, for a determination connected merits.

Background of the case

The entreaty arose from a judgement and decree dated 12 August 2025 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bastar astatine Jagdalpur, successful Civil Suit No.

11A/2025. The appellants are the wife, Smt. Gudiya Nagesh, and the husband, Muniraj Mandavi. The woman belongs to a Scheduled Caste, portion the hubby belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. Their matrimony was solemnised connected 15 April 2009, and they person a son, Jaynil Mandavi, calved connected 28 December 2011, who resides with the wife. The parties stated that they person been surviving separately since 6 April 2014. They jointly moved an exertion nether Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of matrimony by communal consent.

In their pleadings and statements earlier the Family Court, they stated that their matrimony was performed according to Hindu customs and ceremonies, including saptpadi, and that they travel Hindu customs alternatively than the customs of their respective communities. Despite this, the Family Court rejected the application, holding that by virtuousness of Section 2(2) of the 1955 Act, the Act does not use to members of Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government issues a notification directing otherwise.

Therefore, it held that a petition nether Section 13B could not beryllium entertained.

Appellants' arguments

Counsel for the appellants argued that the Family Court erred successful rejecting the petition connected its ain question by invoking Section 2(2). The halfway submission was that the husband, though a Scheduled Tribe member, had stated that the parties travel Hindu customs and that the matrimony was solemnised according to Hindu rites and rituals, including saptpadi.

On that basis, the appellants contended that they had go “Hinduised,” and the Family Court could not contradict them entree to the statutory remedy of mutual-consent divorcement nether Section 13B.

Response of respondents

The precocious tribunal grounds reflects that an amicus curiae, Senior Advocate Manoj Paranjpe, assisted the court. The amicus supported the appellants’ position, emphasising that the parties’ admitted lawsuit was that the matrimony was solemnised successful accordance with Hindu rites and customs, including saptpadi.

It was submitted that the Family Court should not person entered into the question of the applicability of Section 2(2) to non-suit the parties astatine the threshold erstwhile the hubby had voluntarily chosen Hindu customs, traditions, and rites. Reliance was placed connected the Supreme Court determination successful Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi and the Delhi precocious tribunal determination successful Ajmera Ramulu v. B Chandrakala, with a petition that the substance beryllium sent backmost for a caller determination connected merits.

HC’s analysis

The precocious tribunal framed the cardinal contented arsenic whether the Family Court was justified successful holding that Section 13B would not use due to the fact that the hubby belongs to a Scheduled Tribe, thereby attracting the exclusion nether Section 2(2) of the 1955 Act. The Bench reproduced Section 2(2), which states that thing successful the Act applies to members of immoderate Scheduled Tribe wrong the meaning of Article 366(25) of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification successful the Official Gazette, different directs.

The tribunal noted the law explanation of “Scheduled Tribes” and its linkage to Article 342 and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The tribunal past turned to the jurisprudence connected “Hinduised” tribal persons. It noted that the connection “Hindu” is not defined successful the statutes and relied connected the Supreme Court’s reasoning successful Labishwar Manjhi, wherever the Court held that erstwhile grounds shows that parties belonging to a Scheduled Tribe are pursuing Hindu traditions and customs and are substantially Hinduised, the statutory exclusion does not run to support them extracurricular the codified Hindu instrumentality framework. The precocious tribunal treated Labishwar Manjhi arsenic establishing that wherever parties primitively belonging to a Scheduled Tribe person adopted Hindu customs, they cannot beryllium relegated to customary fora erstwhile they themselves admit adherence to Hindu rites and traditions. The Bench besides discussed the chiseled socio-legal abstraction of tribal matrimony and the law designation 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 arsenic a measurement of protection, not exclusion. The tribunal adopted the proposition that a notified people subordinate tin garbage to enactment successful proceedings nether the Act by asserting tribal presumption and adherence to tribal customs, but the proviso cannot barroom a Hinduised tribal idiosyncratic from invoking the Act, peculiarly wherever the spouse is simply a non-tribal Hindu. Applying these principles, the precocious tribunal recovered it “quite vivid” that the hubby is simply a “tribal Hindu” and the woman a “non-tribal Hindu,” and that their matrimony was solemnised arsenic per Hindu customs, rites, and traditions, including saptpadi, arsenic reflected successful the pleadings and statements. Since the hubby voluntarily chose to travel Hindu customs and the parties asserted that they travel Hindu traditions, the tribunal held that they could not beryllium denied the Act’s remedies oregon pushed to customary courts.

The Family Court’s reliance connected Section 2(2) to cull the petition astatine the threshold was truthful held to beryllium erroneous.

Legal significance

The ruling clarifies that Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is intended to sphere and support tribal customary laws and autonomy, not to forestall Scheduled Tribe members—who voluntarily follow Hindu rites and contiguous themselves arsenic governed by Hindu customs—from accessing codified matrimonial remedies. The judgement besides reinforces that maintainability cannot beryllium defeated simply connected the ground of tribal presumption erstwhile the parties’ ain pleadings and grounds amusement a Hindu customary matrimony nether Section 7, including saptpadi, and an expressed prime to travel Hindu traditions.

Final order

The precocious tribunal allowed the appeal, acceptable speech the Family Court’s judgement and decree dated 12 August 2025, and remitted the substance to the Family Court to determine the Section 13B exertion connected its ain merits, expeditiously and successful accordance with law. It directed that a decree beryllium drawn accordingly and recorded its appreciation for the assistance of the amicus curiae.

Key takeaways from the judgment

Why this matters

The determination straight affects entree to statutory matrimonial remedies for inter-community couples wherever 1 spouse is simply a Scheduled Tribe subordinate but the matrimony and marital beingness are asserted to beryllium governed by Hindu customs. By treating Section 2(2) arsenic a protective proviso alternatively than a broad exclusion, the precocious court’s attack prevents the denial of a codified ineligible forum successful cases wherever parties themselves question alleviation nether the Hindu Marriage Act and assertion to person adopted Hindu rites and traditions. It ensures that maintainability is assessed successful airy of the parties’ pleaded and admitted marital signifier and practices, alternatively than presumption alone.