Dr B Swapna, Nalgonda Dist vs. Dr B Gnaneswar, Hyderabad

Facts

The petitioner, Dr. B. Swapna, filed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order dated March 15, 2017, passed by the XV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The challenge was to the dismissal of her application (I.A.No.27 of 2016) filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner sought rejection of a divorce petition filed by the respondent, Dr. B. Gnaneswar, on the grounds that both parties belong to the 'Yerukala' community, which is a Scheduled Tribe. According to Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Act does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government directs otherwise by notification. The trial court had dismissed the petitioner's application, stating that the Hindu Marriage Act applies to all persons who are Hindu by religion, not by caste.

Held

The Court held that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is not applicable to the parties as they belong to the 'Yerukala' community, which is a notified Scheduled Tribe. The reasoning was based on a plain reading of Section 2(2) of the Act, which explicitly states that the Act shall not apply to members of any Scheduled Tribe unless the Central Government directs otherwise by notification. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Dr. Surajmani Stella Kujur v. Durga Charan Hansdah, which clarified that even if parties profess Hinduism, their marriage may be outside the purview of the Hindu Marriage Act if they belong to a Scheduled Tribe and no notification under Section 2(2) makes the Act applicable. The trial court's view that the Act applies to all Hindus by religion, irrespective of caste, was found to be incorrect as it failed to consider the exclusion clause for Scheduled Tribes. The Court found that the petitioner had established that they belong to the 'Yerukala' community, a notified Scheduled Tribe, and thus their marriage is governed by their customs and usage, not the Act. Consequently, the divorce petition was clearly barred under Section 2(2) of the Act and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. The trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's application was deemed a jurisdictional error. The Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, set aside the impugned order, and allowed the application I.A.No.27 of 2016.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is applicable to the parties who belong to the 'Yerukala' community, a notified Scheduled Tribe, in light of Section 2(2) of the Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that as they belong to the 'Yerukala' community, which is a Scheduled Tribe, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is not applicable to them due to the exclusion clause in Section 2(2) of the Act. Therefore, the divorce petition filed by the respondent is barred by law, and the application for rejection of the plaint should have been allowed. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Dr. Surajmani Stella Kujur v. Durga Charan Hansdah. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs, and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of Section 2(2) of the Act. The respondent relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in Satprakash Meena v. Alka Meena.