Tribal Status No Bar to Divorce: Rajasthan HC Grants Mutual-Consent Divorce to Meena Couple Who Followed Hindu Rites

Jaipur- The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has held that members of a Scheduled Tribe who follow Hindu rites, customs and traditions cannot be denied relief under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It set aside a Kota Family Court order and dissolved the marriage of a Meena couple by mutual consent under Section 13-B. The Division Bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Ravi Chirania delivered the judgment in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 411/2026 (Laxmi Meena v. Bahadur Singh Meena).

Both parties belong to the Meena community. They married on 12.06.2017, but serious differences arose during about three years of companionship and led to estrangement. They decided to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent and signed a written agreement on 15.09.2024. On that basis, the Hadoti Adivasi Meena Samajik Sudhar Sangh issued a certificate dated 22.09.2024 certifying the dissolution.

On 01.10.2024 the wife filed Civil Suit No. 57/2024 (CIS No. 1142/2024) before Family Court No. 1, Kota, seeking a decree of dissolution on the basis of the agreement. The husband did not oppose the prayer and was later set ex parte. On 03.09.2025 the Family Court dismissed the suit. It said the parties had not pleaded the customs, rituals and usages of the Meena community and had not shown that the dissolution followed them.

The wife appealed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Appearing for the appellant were Sudhir Yadav, Mangal Singh Saini and Rajesh Kumar Yadav. Avinash Fenin appeared for the respondent.

Counsel for both sides jointly submitted that although the Meena community is a Scheduled Tribe, the parties had followed Hindu procedure for both marriage and its dissolution. Their marriage was solemnised with Saptapadi (seven steps before the sacred fire) and other Hindu rituals. They therefore argued that the bar in Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act did not apply. They jointly prayed that the suit be treated as a joint petition under Section 13-B and a decree of divorce by mutual consent be passed.

Admitted facts recorded by the Court

1. The marriage was solemnised by Hindu rites and customs, with Saptapadi.

2. The parties follow the Hindu religion, rites, customs and traditions.

3. No child was born from the marriage.

4. The parties have lived separately since 2021, for more than five years, with no cohabitation.

5. Both parties consent to the dissolution without any collusion.

• Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi [(2000) 8 SCC 587]: The Supreme Court held that Santhal parties who had become “Hinduised” and followed Hindu traditions were not excluded from the Hindu Succession Act.

• Satprakash Meena v. Alka Meena [(2021) SCC OnLine Del 3645]: The Delhi High Court dissolved a Meena couple’s marriage under Section 13-B. It held that the Section 2(2) exclusion protects the customary practices of recognised tribes and does not keep out tribe members who voluntarily follow Hindu customs.

• Chittapuli v. Union Government [(2021) SCC OnLine AP 1039]: The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Section 2(2) is “a measure of protection and not a measure of exclusion”. A tribe member who voluntarily submits to the Court’s jurisdiction as a Hinduised person cannot be barred at the threshold.

The Division Bench held the law settled that Section 2(2) protects the customary practices of recognised tribes. It said parties who follow Hindu traditions and customs and are substantially Hinduised “cannot be relegated to customary courts”, especially when they themselves admit to following Hindu rites.

It observed that neither party claimed to follow any custom, ritual or usage other than Hindu ones. It was the admitted case of both that they follow Hindu rites, customs and traditions for both solemnisation of marriage and its dissolution.

It found that both sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 13-B were satisfied. It waived the six-month cooling-off period in view of Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur [(2017) 8 SCC 746], where the Supreme Court held Section 13-B(2) to be directory, not mandatory.

Counsel confirmed that no other civil or criminal proceedings are pending between the parties. The issue of permanent alimony has been finally resolved and no dues remain.

The Court set aside the Family Court’s judgment of 03.09.2025 and dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appeal was allowed. The Registry was directed to draw up the decree, pending applications were disposed of, and the Family Court record was ordered to be sent back.