Tribal status no ‘license’ for polygamy: Madhya Pradesh High Court denies woman’s succession claim

“The purpose of Section 2(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 is to protect the tribal traditions and beliefs. However, it cannot be treated to be a license or tool given to the Tribals to resort to polygamy and to defend polygamy despite there being no tradition in such tribes or there being no practice of polygamy,” the court said on March 16.

Even if a second marriage had taken place, it would amount to polygamy, said the Madhya Pradesh High Court. (Image enhanced using AI)

Court’s observation: Custom must be proven, not presumed

• In the present case, nothing has been proved or placed on record that any practice is continuing in the Tribe which permits polygamy/bigamy for the Tribe members, and that their societal norms are any different.
• When a member of ST community claims to be excluded from provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, then he would have to prove that in his Tribe there are certain tribal traditions, which are being followed and respected and therefore, the Tribe would be governed by its own traditions.
• In some tribes polygamy or even polyandry are being practiced.

• They can be argued to be protected despite rigours of Hindu Marriage Act 1956, but for that purpose the concerned Tribe would have to prove its own traditions.
• It has to be proved that such practices are going on in the tribe and are recognised by such tribes.
• It has to be proved that its societal norms are different from the religions governed by Hindu Marriage Act, i.e. Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists.

No divorce, no valid second marriage

• The trial court on May 12, 2023 and the appellate court on April 5, 2023 had earlier reached similar conclusions, finding no proof of such customary practices.
• The court further pointed out that the deceased had not divorced his first wife, making any subsequent marriage legally questionable.
• Even if a second marriage had taken place, the court said, it would amount to polygamy unless justified by established tribal custom which was absent in this case.
• During the hearing, the court specifically asked the petitioner’s counsel to produce judicial precedents, anthropological records, or community literature supporting the existence of polygamy in the tribe.
• No such material was furnished.

Final verdict: Petition dismissed

• Concluding that the petitioner failed to establish either a valid marriage or a recognised tribal custom permitting polygamy, the court dismissed the revision petition.

Dispute over succession rights

• The case arose from a dispute over succession following the death of a coal mine worker, Bhagat Singh, who died on January 25, 2013.
• The petitioner, Munni Bai, claimed that she had married the deceased in 1986 and lived with him until his death.
• She sought a share in his service dues and deposits, arguing that their community belonging to the “Pav” Scheduled Tribe recognised polygamy, and therefore, her marriage should be considered valid despite the existence of a first wife.

• However, the first wife, Phoolmat Pav, contested the claim, asserting that she was the legally wedded spouse, having married the deceased around 1980.
• She further pointed out that her name was officially recorded as the wife in service documents, strengthening her claim to exclusive succession rights.

Key legal question: Applicability of Hindu Marriage Act

• At the heart of the dispute was whether members of Scheduled Tribes are automatically exempt from the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, particularly in matters involving marriage and succession.
• The petitioner relied heavily on Section 2(2) of the Act, which excludes Scheduled Tribes from its application unless the central government directs otherwise.
• She argued that this exemption allowed tribal communities to follow their customary practices, including polygamy.

Supreme Court precedent strengthens view

• The high court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Labishwar Manjhi vs Pran Manjhi, which held that Scheduled Tribes cannot automatically claim exemption from Hindu law unless they demonstrate that their customs are distinct and continue to be followed.

• The apex court had clarified that “Hinduised” tribal communities that adopt mainstream Hindu practices may fall within the ambit of Hindu personal laws, unless proven otherwise.
• Applying this principle, the high court observed that there was no evidence to show that the parties’ community maintained customs materially different from those governed by Hindu law.

Limited relief in similar cases

• The judgment also referred to Rameshwari Devi vs State of Bihar, where the Supreme Court had recognized the rights of children born from a second relationship but denied benefits to the second wife due to lack of proof of a valid marriage.
• This distinction, the high court noted, reflects a balanced approach—protecting innocent dependents while upholding the sanctity of marriage laws.