Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akshat G. Pradhan vs Dr. Arvind Pradhan on 31 May, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 31st OF MAY, 2024
CIVIL REVISION No. 779 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
AKSHAT G. PRADHAN D/O KISHANCHAND PARASTE,
R/O 283, OLD MINAL RESIDENCY, NEAR OVERBRIDGE
GARDEN, MINAL RESIDENCY HUZUR, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MS.TARUPRIYA SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
DR. ARVIND PRADHAN S/O SHRI LOBHAN PRADHAN,
R/O 404, CLASSICA ELITE APARTMENT, NEW JAIL
ROAD, SANJAY ROAD, POLICE STATION NISHATPURA
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY NONE)
Reserved on : 01.03.2024
Pronounced on: 31.5.2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This revision having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
passed the following:
ORDER
Challenge has been made to the order dated 24.8.2023 passed by Second
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in RCS HM/56/2022 [Akshat
G . Pradhan Vs. Dr. Arvind Pradhan] whereby the application of the
petitioner/Defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed and suit
has held to be maintainable.
2. Facts of the case, in short, are that respondent/plaintiff had filed
a n application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The same was
opposed by the petitioner/defendant by filing an application under Order 7 Rule
11 of CPC on the ground that both the parties belong to Schedule Tribe,
therefore, provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 do not attract, therefore, the
application be dismissed as not maintainable but the trial Court has rejected the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
3 . The grounds of challenge in this revision are that although
marriage between the parties took although not strictly as per Hindu rites and
rituals but as per section 2 of Hindu Marriage Act provisions thereof will not be
applicable to a member to Scheduled Tribe as mentioned under Schedule 25 of
Article 366 of the Constitution. It is further submitted that learned trial Court
misconstrued and observed that since Hindu rites were observed during
marriage provisions of Hindu Marriage Act would be applicable and suit was
maintainable.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case has
placed reliance on the decision in the case of Rupa Debbarma Vs. Tapash
Debbarma, 2020 SCC Online Tri 425 (Hon.DB) and decision of Hon'ble
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Jyoti Vs. Devilal s/o
Nahale Salame [M.P.475/2023 decided vide order dated 17.10.2023].
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
On perusal of record it is seen that both the parties have filed caste certificate in
which they have been shown as member of Scheduled Tribe, therefore, in the
light aforesaid referred decisions also it is clear that provisions of Hindu
Marriage Act would not apply to the parties, which belong to Scheduled Tribe
community, even though some rites must have been performed between parties
as per Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, order of the learned trial Court rejecting
the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is not just and proper and hence,
cannot be upheld as the parties do not govern by Hindu Marriage Act.
6 . In the result, revision is allowed. Hence, the application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is allowed. Consequently, the case No.RCS HM/56/2022
stands dismissed.
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
RM
