Introduction
The case of Dr. Surajmani Stella Kujur v. Durga Charan Hansdah deals with a crucial question regarding validity of marriage among Scheduled Tribes, specifically focusing on whether the parties had entered into a lawful marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and whether the law even applied to them. This case is important in family law because it clarifies the applicability of Hindu personal laws to Scheduled Tribes and establishes the significance of statutory compliance in solemnizing marriages.
Bench
- Justice K.T. Thomas
- Justice R.P. Sethi
The case was heard and decided by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India.
Facts
Dr. Surajmani Stella Kujur, the appellant, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent, Durga Charan Hansdah. She claimed that the two had been legally married and that the respondent had thereafter withdrawn from her company without reasonable cause. She sought a legal order compelling him to return to cohabitation.
However, Durga Charan Hansdah denied the existence of any valid marriage, arguing that no marriage had been solemnized between them under the Hindu Marriage Act. More importantly, he pointed out that both parties belonged to Scheduled Tribes, and therefore, the Hindu Marriage Act did not apply to them by default, unless a formal notification was issued by the government under Section 2(2) of the Act.
He also contended that the customs of their tribal community had not been followed, nor were any rites and ceremonies, such as Saptapadi (seven steps around the sacred fire)—a key requirement under Hindu law—performed. As a result, there was no valid marriage, either under tribal custom or under Hindu law. The trial court and High Court had ruled against the appellant, and she appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, applies to Scheduled Tribe individuals in the absence of a specific government notification under Section 2(2).
- Whether there was a valid marriage between the appellant and the respondent under the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Whether the appellant was entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act.
Arguments
Appellant (Dr. Surajmani Stella Kujur):
She argued that a valid marriage had taken place between her and the respondent in the year 1988, and that the marriage was solemnized as per Hindu customs. She further claimed that despite the absence of formal documentation, the conduct of the parties and mutual recognition of the relationship implied that a valid marriage existed. She relied on photographs and witness testimony to establish that marriage rituals were conducted.
Respondent (Durga Charan Hansdah):
The respondent strongly denied any valid marriage. He argued that no ceremonies as required under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act (especially Saptapadi) had been performed. Furthermore, since both parties were members of Scheduled Tribes, the Hindu Marriage Act was not applicable, as no notification by the Central Government had extended the Act to their community. Thus, the petition itself was not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi (Legal Principle Applied)
The Supreme Court held that under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Act does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government issues a notification specifically making it applicable. Since no such notification was shown to the Court, and both parties were from Scheduled Tribes, the Act did not govern their relationship.
Furthermore, even if the Hindu Marriage Act were applicable, the appellant failed to prove that a valid marriage was solemnized as per the legal requirements. Essential ceremonies like Saptapadi were not performed, and the evidence provided was insufficient to establish that any religious or customary rites were followed. Hence, there was no valid marriage in the eyes of the law.
Observation
The Court observed that Scheduled Tribes in India often follow customary laws and tribal traditions, and these differ significantly from codified Hindu law. Unless expressly brought under the scope of the Hindu Marriage Act through official notification, they continue to be governed by their customary practices. Also, the Court emphasized the importance of strict proof of marriage ceremonies when a party seeks legal relief based on the existence of a marriage.
The Court noted that mere photographs, uncorroborated witness statements, or assertions without legal and ceremonial backing do not prove the solemnization of a valid marriage under either the Hindu Marriage Act or tribal customs.
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that:
- The Hindu Marriage Act did not apply to the parties since they belonged to Scheduled Tribes and no Central Government notification had been issued under Section 2(2).
- Even otherwise, there was no proof of a valid marriage, as the necessary rites and ceremonies under Section 7 of the Act were not performed.
- Therefore, the petition under Section 9 (Restitution of Conjugal Rights) was not maintainable, and the earlier decisions of the lower courts were upheld.
Conclusion
This case serves as a significant precedent in understanding the scope and applicability of Hindu personal laws to Scheduled Tribes in India. The Supreme Court reinforced the principle that unless there is official inclusion through notification, members of Scheduled Tribes are governed by their own customary laws and not by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The judgment also highlights that marriage is a legal institution that must be established with clear and lawful evidence, and vague claims without compliance with legal or customary rituals cannot form the basis of marital rights.
Important Terms
- Section 2(2), Hindu Marriage Act: States that the Act does not apply to Scheduled Tribes unless notified by the Central Government.
- Scheduled Tribes: Communities recognized in the Constitution of India as socially disadvantaged and often governed by their own customary laws.
- Saptapadi: The seven steps around a sacred fire, a mandatory ritual for a valid Hindu marriage under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Restitution of Conjugal Rights (Section 9): A legal remedy allowing a spouse to seek the return of the other spouse to marital cohabitation.
