Exploring Divorce Rules for Scheduled Tribes

In India, marriage and divorce is governed by religious laws like Hindu Marriage Act, Sharia Laws, Indian Divorce Act, Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act. On the other hand, the Special Marriage Act being a secular law, governs marriage regardless of religion. However, neither of the laws lay Divorce rules for Scheduled Tribes in India. Then the question arises, how can ST people dissolve their marriages? In the absence of dedicated provisions, Supreme Court judgments on ST divorce clear the clouds of confusion. This article seeks to throw some light upon the legal picture for Scheduled Tribe divorce.  

Marriage and Divorce Laws for Scheduled Tribes

The Constitution of India extends special status to Scheduled Tribes with tribal autonomy. The Hindu Marriage Act specifically excludes ST persons from application of the Act, unless the Central Government may specify. In other words, the Hindu marriage and divorce laws are inapplicable to Scheduled Tribes.  

The legal framework governing divorce for Scheduled Tribes in India is complex, mostly due to exception from personal laws, and recognition of customary practices. Marriage and divorce rules for Scheduled Tribes in India are subject to tribal customs and traditions. This also means that a divorce performed according to valid tribal custom is legally recognized, even without a court decree. Unlike Hindu or couples of other religions, ST persons are not required to approach the Courts for divorce procedures.  

Scheduled Tribe - Customary Divorce Validity

Indian Laws and Courts are very strict and clear regarding requirements of approaching the Court for divorce. However, customary divorce among Scheduled Tribes (ST) is legally valid when customs and traditional practices are followed. The custom for divorce varies from tribe to tribe, since some of them have no scope for ending a marriage, while others may allow dissolution of marriage when a couple approaches them. In some, the couple may go before a tribal council or court for grant of divorce, while others may file for divorce with the tribal government. Some tribes also grant certain periods for reconciliation. 

For such divorce rules for Scheduled Tribes to be binding, the custom must be ancient, reasonable, certain, and evidently proven. Also, Section 7(1)(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 empowers Family Courts to exercise jurisdiction under any law. This also means that a suit for divorce under customary law is maintainable before Family Courts. In principle, justice, equality and good conscience are the founding stones for Courts encountering questions related to divorce rules for ST persons.  

Supreme Court Judgments on Scheduled Tribes Divorce

Dr. Surajmani Stella Kujur vs Durga Charan Hansdah And Another (2001 CaseBase(SC) 2570)

The Supreme Court in this case discussed the major question of who is a Hindu for the purposes of the applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The parties were two tribals belonging to Oraon and Santhal tribes, otherwise professing Hinduism. The matter pertains to second marriage, customs and offence of bigamy under Section 494 of IPC. Their marriage was slated to be governed only by their Santal Customs and usage, being out of the purview of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court found that no case for prosecution for the offence of bigamy was made in the absence of specific pleadings, evidence and proof of the alleged custom making the second marriage void. Therefore, the Court did not find the respondent guilty of bigamy. 

Labishwar Manjhi vs Pran Manjhi And Others (2000 CaseBase(SC) 1458)

The question in this case pertained to inheritance, and the Hindu Succession Act has a similar exception as in HMA, regarding applicability to Scheduled Tribes. The Apex Court observed that when evidence disclose that parties belonging to Santhal Tribe were following customs of Hindus and not of Santhals, provision of Hindu Succession Act would apply to inheritance of property. 

High Courts on Divorce for Scheduled Tribes

Baga Tirkey vs Pinki Linda (2021 CaseBase(JHKD) 287)

The Court addressed the question of jurisdiction for parties belonging to Oraon Tribal community, wherein the husband sought divorce on the ground of adultery. The Jharkhand High Court held that the Family Court committed in error while denying maintainability of suit in the absence of any codified law governing divorce for the parties. The Trial Court had concluded that customary divorce could only be exercised by Community Panchayat. 

The Jharkhand High Court clarified that “The legislature having consciously conferred jurisdiction upon the Family Court to adjudicate on matters, enumerating under Clauses-(a) to (g) of the Explanation to Section 7(1) including a suit or proceeding between the parties to the marriage for decree of nullity of marriage or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage”. Therefore, the matter was sent back to the Family Court for adjudication.

Rajendra Kumar Singh Munda vs Mamta Devi (2015)

The matter pertained to dismissal of an application for divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Jharkhand High Court noted that the appellant husband was a member of Munda - a tribal community. The Court expressed that “looking to Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, this act is not applicable to the appellant as the appellant is a member of a Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of Article 366(25) of the Constitution of India.” The Jharkhand High Court relied on Supreme Court’s decision in Surajmani Stella Kujur to hold that the marriage of parties was not governed by the HMA 1955. The Court accordingly dismissed the husband’s appeal.  

Dr. Bini B. vs Jayan PR (2015)

The Kerala High Court in this case analysed whether Wayanad’s Kuruma Community was entitled to the benefit of Section 2(2) of Hindu Marriage Act for a marriage solemnized as per Hindu customs. The matter pertained to restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of HMA, and the Family Court directed the wife to reside in the husband’s society. The Court observed that parties belong to Kuruma which is a Scheduled Tribe. The Court held that the customs and usages governed by the tribe alone is applicable to parties. 

The Court was of the view that “a member of 'Kuruma' community, which has been specified as Scheduled Tribe in the State of Kerala under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950, is entitled to the rights and privileges of the tribes under the constitution of India. The tribal people observe their festivals, which have no direct conflict with any religion, and they conduct marriage among them according to their tribal custom. They have their own way of life to maintain all privileges in matters connected with marriage and succession, according to their customary tribal faith.” 

Satprakash Meena vs Alka Meena (2021 CaseBase(DEL) 1737)

The matter pertains to the applicability of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for parties belonging to Meena community. The marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs. The husband filed a petition for divorce which concluded in dismissal on wife’s prayer for rejection of petition stating non-applicability of HMA on Scheduled Tribes.  

The Delhi High Court noted that the parties got married as per Hindu rites with the wedding invitation beginning with the phrase “Shree Ganeshay Namah”. The Court allowed the appeal against dismissal of divorce petition and directed the Family Court to proceed as per Section 13 of the HMA 1955.  

Anom Apang vs Geeta Singh (2011)

The husband belonged to Adi Tribe, while the wife was a Hindu. The wife sought divorce under Hindu Marriage Act, while the husband contested the proceedings, challenging the applicability of HMA as against Adi customary law. The Court noted that the Adi Tribe was recognized as a Scheduled Tribe vide Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. Therefore, even if the parties married as per the customs of the Adi Tribe, they were still married as per Hindu Marriage Act.  

The Gauhati High Court observed that “what is required to be seen is not the person or the personality involved, but the manner in which the marriage was solemnized. In this case, since the marriage was solemnized in terms of the Act (which included the Adi customary law at the relevant time), the learned Trial Judge would not cease to have jurisdiction to continue with the matter only because the appellant-husband became a member of a Scheduled Tribe in terms of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.” 

Kadavath Srikanth vs Kadavath Ashwitha (2024)

The couple got married in 2019 as per Hindu rites. They took a customary divorce in 2023 in the presence of elders following an agreement on alimony. The challenge pertained to decree of Divorce by Mutual Consent for a couple belonging to Lambada Case (Scheduled Tribe Community). The Trial Judge returned the petition for want of jurisdiction, thereby reaching the Telangana High Court.  

Rupa Debbarma v. Tapash Debbarma (2020)

The matter pertained to a couple belonging to Tripuri community who allegedly got married as per Hindu rites. The Tripura High Court decided divorce rules for Scheduled Tribes in terms of Tripuri community. The High Court concluded that “For the state of Tripura, Tripuri community with all its derivatives have been notified way back in 1950 by the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950 and in view that in view of section 2 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the said Act will have no application for purpose of dissolution of marriage etc. even though the marriage of the parties were solemnized as per Hindu customs and rites, inasmuch as on the basis of ethnicity, the Scheduled Tribes, within the meaning of clause 25 of the Article 366 of the Constitution have been specially and specifically excluded unless the Central government by notification may otherwise direct.” 

Chittapuli Alias Duvvi Jhansi Bai vs Union Government (2021 CaseBase(AP) 71)

In this case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court settled a crucial question pertaining to divorce for Scheduled Tribe when one spouse belongs to the tribe and the other is a non-tribal Hindu. The Court held that “The provisions of Section 2(2) of the Act would have to be interpreted to mean that any member of a notified tribe can refuse to participate in any proceeding under the Act of 1955 on the ground that he/she is a member of a notified tribe and is following tribal customs and is not bound by or following Hindu customs. However, the same cannot bar a member of a notified schedule tribe who is hinduised from invoking the provisions of the Act of 1955, especially when the spouse is a non tribal Hindu.” Therefore, the Court allowed the petitioner to move an application for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.  

Ajmera Ramulu vs B. Chandrakala (2021 CaseBase(DEL) 2818)

The Delhi High Court was called upon to decide a case for rejection of petition under Section 13(1)(i)(b) of Hindu Marriage Act. It was alleged that the Act was not applicable to the parties belonging to Lambada community. Since the appellant failed to prove solemnization of marriage exclusively under tribal customary law, the High Court upheld the Family Court’s conclusion that “if parties belonging to Schedule Tribe chooses to marry in accordance with Hindu rites and custom, their marriage would be governed by the Hindu marriage Act, 1955.” 

FA(MAT) No. 344 of 2025 at Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court addressed a question regarding validity of a mutual consent divorce for a couple where one spouse belonged to the Scheduled Caste and the other came from a Scheduled Tribe. The Court was of the opinion that when a Scheduled Tribe member voluntarily submits himself or herself to the jurisdiction of Court on the ground of being Hindus who follow Hindu customs and practices, such member cannot be prohibited or barred from invoking the provisions of HMA.