When Tribal Marriages Fall Under Hindu Law

Source : Indian Express 

Introduction  

The Delhi High Court has settled an important question at the intersection of tribal customary law and codified personal law. In a recent ruling, the division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that when members of a Scheduled Tribe solemnize their marriage according to Hindu rites and ceremonies, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) governs their union, even though tribal communities are ordinarily exempt from its application. 

What is the Legal Framework Governing Tribal Marriages? 

• The Hindu Marriage Act was enacted to consolidate and codify Hindu marriage law. However, Section 2(2) of the HMA creates an explicit carve-out: its provisions do not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government issues a notification bringing them within its purview. No such notification has been issued for the Lambada (Banjara) community at the center of this dispute. 
• This exemption exists to preserve tribal autonomy and protect customary laws that have governed these communities for generations. Tribal customs, though uncodified and local in nature, carry the force of law within their respective communities. Section 3 of the HMA defines "custom" as a practice "continuously and uniformly observed for a long time" that has "obtained the force of law among Hindus in any local area, tribe, community, group or family." 
• However, Section 7 of the HMA provides critical flexibility. It recognizes that Hindu marriages may be solemnized according to "the customary rites and ceremonies of either party," with particular emphasis on the saptapadi—the ritual of taking seven steps around the sacred fire. The marriage becomes legally complete upon the seventh step. 

How did the Courts determine which law applied? 

• The case arose from a divorce petition filed by a wife under the HMA. Her husband contested the petition's maintainability, arguing that as members of a Scheduled Tribe, their marriage was governed exclusively by tribal customary law, not the HMA. The central question became: under which legal regime was this particular marriage solemnized? 
• The Court emphasized that custom cannot be presumed; it must be established through clear and convincing evidence. The burden of proof fell on the husband to demonstrate that the marriage followed Lambada tribal customs rather than Hindu rites. 
• The photographic evidence proved decisive. Images from the wedding ceremony showed the essential markers of a Hindu sacrament: the sacred fire (agni), the mangalsutra and bichiya worn by the bride, and the performance of saptapadi. The husband claimed these photographs were staged after the actual tribal ceremony, but provided no substantive evidence to support this assertion. Applying the standard of "preponderance of probabilities," the Court found that the photographs reflected the genuine marriage rites as performed. 
• The bench observed that the husband "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." This failure of proof proved fatal to his defense. 

What does Voluntary Adoption of Hindu practices mean? 

• The Delhi High Court drew on the Supreme Court's authoritative precedent in Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi (2000). That case involved Santhal tribal members who had adopted Hindu practices including shradh ceremonies, pinda rituals, Hindu names, and widowhood customs. The Supreme Court held that tribal members who voluntarily embrace Hindu customs fall within the scope of Hindu personal law. 
• The critical principle is voluntary adoption. The statutory exemption for Scheduled Tribes exists to protect their customary laws, not to deny them access to codified legal protections when they choose to follow Hindu practices. As the Delhi High Court noted, the couple in question were educated, resided outside traditional tribal settlements, and appeared socially integrated into mainstream society—factors supporting the conclusion that they had embraced Hindu marriage customs. 

Conclusion  

This judgment reinforces that the application of personal law depends on actual practices, not merely community membership. While Scheduled Tribes retain the right to be governed by their customary laws, when they voluntarily adopt Hindu rites and ceremonies—particularly in marriage—they bring themselves within the framework of the Hindu Marriage Act. 

The ruling preserves tribal autonomy while acknowledging the reality of cultural integration and individual choice. It establishes that the question is not whether an entire community has become "Hinduised," but whether a particular marriage was conducted according to Hindu rituals—a question to be determined by evidence, not assumption.