The High Court of Delhi has affirmed a Family Court decision, ruling that a divorce petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) by a woman belonging to the ‘Lambada (Banjara)’ Scheduled Tribe is maintainable. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetrpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that where parties from a Scheduled Tribe have “Hinduised” and solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites and customs, the provisions of the HMA will apply, notwithstanding the statutory exclusion under Section 2(2) of the Act.
The judgment, pronounced on November 4, 2025, dismissed an appeal filed by the husband (Appellant) challenging the Family Court’s order dated February 9, 2024, which had found the wife’s (Respondent) divorce petition maintainable.
Background of the Case
The case involves an appeal filed by the husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against a judgment of the Family Court. The Respondent (wife), an IAS Officer, had filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i)(b) of the HMA. The Appellant (husband), an Assistant Executive Engineer in Andhra Pradesh, sought rejection of this petition by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The Appellant’s primary contention was that both parties belong to the “Lambadis (Banjara)” community, which is a notified Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. He argued that in view of the statutory exclusion contained in Section 2(2) of the HMA, the Act did not apply to them, and the Family Court thus had no jurisdiction.
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on February 2, 1998, and a child was born from the wedlock on March 13, 1999.
The Family Court had rejected the Appellant’s application, holding that on a “preponderance of probability,” the marriage was performed according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The court noted that the parties “have been socially and educationally advanced and apparently assimilated in the mainstream of the society” and thus found the divorce petition maintainable. The husband appealed this decision to the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Submissions (Husband): The Appellant argued that the marriage was solemnized in Andhra Pradesh according to the “customary rites, traditions, and principles prevailing” among the Lambadi tribe. He contended that while some symbolic elements resembled Hindu marriages, the essential Hindu rite of ‘Saptapadi’ (seven steps) was not performed. He asserted that the Lambadi community has not been “Hinduised” and continues to follow its distinct customary laws. Therefore, he claimed the exclusion under Section 2(2) of the HMA was absolute, and the petition was not maintainable.
Respondent’s Submissions (Wife): The Respondent countered that the marriage was “solemnized according to the Hindu Customary rites and rituals.” In her testimony, she stated: “…I was wearing a red wedding dress and ‘Bichiya’ (a toe ring) in my toe fingers, which is the symbolical image of a Hindu bride. The Respondent applied ‘Alta’… tied a nuptial garland i.e. a ‘mangalsutra’ around my neck and finally we took the ‘saatpheras’ in front of the sacred fire, in presence of all our relatives, family and the Hindu priest…”
She also submitted that the Lambada community has undergone a process of “Hinduisation” and that she had declared her religion as “Hindu” in her descriptive roll form submitted to the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA). The Respondent further pointed out that the Appellant had admitted a marriage photograph (Ex PW1/3) and that the Family Court rightly drew an adverse inference against him for failing to produce other photographs and videos of the ceremony that were in his possession.
The Respondent placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi & Ors. (2000) 8 SCC 587, which held that if parties belonging to a Scheduled Tribe marry under Hindu rites, their marriage is governed by the HMA.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court divided its analysis into four principal components: the applicability of Section 2(2) of the HMA, the determination of whether the parties were “Hinduised,” admissions by the Appellant, and the social context.
Applicability of Section 2(2) and Section 7 of HMA: The Court noted that the principal question was whether the parties had “assimilated Hindu rites and customs to such an extent that the provisions of the HMA would be applicable.” Analyzing Section 7 of the HMA (Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage), the bench observed that the Act grants statutory recognition to ‘Saptapadi’ but “does not make it mandatory for the validity of every Hindu marriage.” The law acknowledges the “plurality of customs and rituals” among Hindu communities.
Determination of ‘Hinduisation’: The Court found the Respondent’s testimony regarding the specific Hindu rituals performed (wearing ‘Bichiya’, tying of ‘Mangalsutra’, and performing ‘saatpheras’) to be credible. It also gave weight to ethnographic studies, such as one cited from the International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, which stated, “The most important symbol of marriage, the mangalsutra, is tied by the groom to the bride’s neck… according to the Telgu tradition,” concluding that “the present system is an admix of Lambada and Hindu systems.”
The bench heavily relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Labishwar Manjhi (supra), where it was held: “…though the parties originally belong to the Santhal Scheduled Tribe they are Hinduised and they are following the Hindu traditions. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that Sub-section 2 will not apply…”
The High Court also cited its own precedent in Satprakash Meena v. Alka Meena (2021:DHC:1989), reiterating that, “If members of a tribe voluntarily choose to follow Hindu customs, traditions and rites they cannot be kept out of the purview of the provisions of the HMA, 1955.” The Satprakash Meena judgment had further observed that relegating parties who follow Hindu customs to “customary Courts” that may lack proper procedures would be “antithetical to the purpose behind enacting a statute like the HMA, 1955.”
Admissions and Failure of Proof: The Court noted that the Appellant had “failed to challenge the Respondent’s testimony regarding the solemnization of the marriage as per Hindu rites and customs in her examination-in-chief.” Citing legal principles, the judgment stated, “It is well settled that if correctness of statement in examination-in-chief of a witness remains unchallenged in cross-examination, the Court is justified in drawing inference that correctness of the unchallenged statement is not disputed.”
Furthermore, the bench found that the Appellant “failed to adduce any substantive or corroborative evidence to demonstrate that the marriage was performed exclusively in accordance with the customary practices of the Lambada community.”
Conclusion and Decision
Concluding its judgment, the High Court held that the Family Court’s decision was sound. The bench stated, “On a holistic reading of the evidence, the pleadings, and the findings recorded by the Learned Family Court, this Court finds no infirmity in the conclusion that the marriage in question was performed in accordance with Hindu rites and customs and is, therefore, governed by the HMA.”
The Court ruled that the Appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proving that the marriage was solemnized exclusively under tribal customary law. “Consequently,” the judgment read, “the Learned Family Court was justified in holding that the dissolution of marriage could only be sought under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.”
Finding no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
