‘Jurisdictional error’: Telangana HC overrules family court, dissolves tribal woman’s marriage with SC man under Hindu Marriage Act

The petitioner, a dental student in Nizamabad back then, alleged that the SC man had been stalking and harassing her since 2010, forcibly took her to a temple in Nellore in May 2012 and coerced her into a marriage under the threat of an acid attack. He allegedly forced her to sign a few documents and later in August 2013 handed her an alleged marriage certificate.

The man, a police constable, contended that they had a consensual relationship and were married according to Hindu rites and customs. The woman’s plea for the dissolution of marriage before the family court-cum-additional district judge, Nizamabad, was dismissed in July 2014, thereby recognising the marriage.

The woman’s counsel argued in the high court that she hailed from a Schedule Tribe (Gond) community and that the man a Scheduled Caste (Mala) community and hence the marriage solemnised under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act was void for the reason that the Act has no application to the case.
The man’s counsel submitted that the marriage was solemnised under the Hindu Marriage Act with the woman’s free will and consent and that her parents forced her to avoid marital life with him since he belongs to the SC Mala community and was serving as a police constable.

‘Marriage not sustainable’

The high court primarily noted that a marriage registered under the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be sustained in law if one of the parties is not governed by the Act. The court also noted that the woman belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, to which the Hindu Marriage Act does not apply as per section 2(2) of the Act. “In the absence of any central government notification extending the Act, statutory exclusion continues to operate, and cannot be neutralised by registration, ceremony, or mutual consent,” the court observed.

The court also underscored that there is neither pleading nor evidence to establish that the woman had abandoned tribal customs or was governed exclusively by Hindu personal law.
The respondent’s reliance on registration under the Hindu Marriage Act, therefore, does not advance his case, as registration cannot validate what the statute expressly excludes, the court noted.

“The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is inapplicable to the petitioner, and the alleged marriage, insofar as it is sought to be recognized under the said Act, is void in law,” the court said.

The high court also faulted the family court for adjudicating the case by applying the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, without first deciding the foundational issue of statutory applicability. “When jurisdiction itself is contingent upon such applicability, failure to adjudicate the same renders the entire exercise jurisdictionally infirm, warranting appellate interference,” the court said.

The high court thus concluded that the family court committed a “jurisdictional error”. Allowing the appeal, the high court declared that the marriage is void and unenforceable in law.