Applicability Of The Hindu Marriage Act To Marriages Among Tribal

APPLICABILITY OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT TO MARRIAGES AMONG TRIBAL COMMUNITIES: THE HIGH COURT IN A.R. v. B.C. REITERATES THE TEST OF RITES AND INTENTION

I. Introduction

On 4 November 2025, the High Court in A.R. v. B.C. considered whether a marriage between members of the Lambadi (Banjara) Scheduled Tribe, solemnized using Hindu rituals, falls within the scope of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).

The Bench of Justices Harish Vaidyanathan and Anil Kshetrapal dismissed the husband’s appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, affirming that the HMA applies where the parties voluntarily adopt Hindu rites in their marriage ceremony, irrespective of tribal affiliation.

II. Factual Background

The parties married on 2 February 1998 and have a son born 13 March 1999. The appellant-husband, an Assistant Executive Engineer in the Andhra Pradesh Irrigation Department, belongs to the Lambadi community; the respondent-wife is an IAS officer of the Uttar Pradesh cadre.

The husband contended that the marriage followed Lambadi customs, lacked Saptapadi, and therefore lay outside the HMA. The wife asserted that the ceremony included quintessential Hindu elements such as sacred fire, saatphere, application of alta and mangalsutra, and was intended as a Hindu marriage.

The Family Court accepted the wife’s version and proceeded under the HMA. The husband appealed.

III. Issues for Determination

Whether the marriage between members of a Scheduled Tribe celebrated with Hindu rites is governed by the HMA.

Whether the Family Court erred in treating the Lambadi community as “Hinduised” or in finding that the parties intended a Hindu marriage.

What is the scope of appellate interference under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act in such factual determinations?

IV. Judicial Analysis

A. Form and Intent of Ceremony- The Court emphasized that applicability of the HMA depends not on ethnic classification but on the form of the ceremony and the intention of the parties. When a couple consciously performs Hindu marriage rituals, they bring the union within the Act’s framework regardless of community status.

B. Evidence and Findings- Photographs and witness testimony established performance of Hindu customs, including saatphere and tying of the mangalsutra. The appellant’s claim of purely tribal custom was unsupported by proof. The Court therefore affirmed the Family Court’s factual conclusion.

C. Limited Appellate Jurisdiction- Reiterating precedents on Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, the Bench held that the High Court does not re-appreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or contrary to law. No such infirmity was shown.

D. Pluralism and Legal Integration- The judgment reflects a pragmatic approach to India’s plural social fabric: personal law applicability may transcend strict community labels when parties freely adopt another system’s ceremonies.

V. Outcome

The appeal was dismissed. The High Court upheld the Family Court’s finding that the parties’ marriage was governed by the HMA and that the proceedings instituted under it were maintainable.

VI. Implications

Ceremonial Test for HMA Applicability- Clarifies that voluntary observance of Hindu rites brings a marriage within the Act’s ambit even if the spouses belong to a Scheduled Tribe.

Judicial Restraint in Appeals- Affirms limited interference with Family Court’s factual findings.

Cultural Flexibility- Endorses a functional, evidence-based method to determine personal-law applicability.

Guidance for Mixed Marriages- Provides precedent for couples from different communities opting for specific religious rituals.

VII. Conclusion

A.R. v. B.C. consolidates the jurisprudence that the decisive factor for applying the Hindu Marriage Act is not birth or caste but the choice and performance of Hindu marriage rites. The decision harmonizes cultural autonomy with statutory certainty, ensuring that intention and ceremony, not mere identity, govern the legal character of marriage in a plural society.