The Banjara community, a scheduled tribe, has become substantially ‘Hinduised’ and Banjara marriages performed with Hindu rituals fall within the scope of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), the Delhi High Court recently ruled..A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar rejected the objection by a woman’s husband that the divorce plea under HMA was not maintainable since the couple belonged to a scheduled tribe. Thus, it upheld a family court order which had held that a divorce petition filed by a Banjara (Lambada) woman under the Hindu Marriage Act was maintainable.The Court relied on the expert literature and ethnographic studies cited by the woman to observe that though the Banjara community has historically been a scheduled tribe, it has undergone a gradual process of Hinduisation. The community’s marriage ceremonies have assimilated elements of Hindu rituals and it is evident to say that the present system is an admix of Lambada and Hindu systems, the Court said. “In this view, and with respect to the present case, the performance of essential Hindu ceremonies, which include the invocation of the sacred fire, the wearing of Mangalsutra and Bichiya, and the Saptapadi, clearly reflects that the marriage bore all the hallmarks of a Hindu sacrament. The contention of the Appellant that the parties were not Hinduised is, therefore, untenable. It is evident that the Appellant has not substantially shown or deposed that the marriage was performed according to the customs of the Lambada community, neither in the affidavit nor in the cross-examination,” the Court said. .The High Court was dealing with a plea filed by the husband against the family court order dismissing his application against the divorce petition. He had argued that the divorce petition was barred by Section 2(2) of the HMA, which says that the Act’s provisions do not apply to the members of the scheduled tribes, unless the Central government’s notification directs otherwise. The husband moved the High Court against the family court order. .After considering the case, the High Court agreed with the family court order.The Court noted that Section 7 of the HMA does not prescribe any particular form of ceremony as a sine qua non for a valid marriage, but rather confers legal recognition on the diversity of Hindu matrimonial customs. It observed that as per Section 7 of the HMA, the essentials of a Hindu marriage are performance of customary rites and ceremonies, intention to enter into a marital union, saptapadi where applicable, and proof of solemnisation and that the Banjara community have assimilated essential elements of Hindu solemnization.“In this view, the determination in the present case as to whether the marriage between the parties satisfies the essentials prescribed under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hinges upon the evidence adduced to establish that the ceremonies performed were those recognized either under Hindu law or under the customary practices of the Lambada (Banjara) community, which, as demonstrated, have assimilated essential elements of Hindu solemnization,” the Court underlined. Therefore, it rejected the husband’s appeal. “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,” it concluded. .Advocate Manoj Singh appeared for the husband. Advocates Akshat Bajpai, Shobhit Trehan and Jayashree Mishra represented the wife. .[Read Judgment]
