This appeal under Section 19(1) of The Family Courts Act, 1984 is filed
assailing the order dated 8.2.2025 passed by learned 1st Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Indore, whereby learned Principal Judge returned the
application filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 concluding
that provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act do not apply to the parties, who are
members of the Jaina Community.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7735
2 The exposition of facts, foundational to present appeal, is as under:
a. Appellant Nitesh Sethi and Respondent Shikha Sethi were married on 17th
July 2017 according to Hindu rituals and customs. Due to marital discord, the
Respondent left her matrimonial home on 18.04.2018 and started living with her
parents. Both the parties have been living separately for the last six years. They
decided to dissolve their marriage, therefore, a petition under Section 13B of
Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage was submitted before the Family
Court Indore on 06.07.2024. The petition was registered as HMA Case No. 1510
of 2024. Learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, returned
the petition vide impugned order dated 08.02.2025 for prosecuting the same in
accordance with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
b. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court considered the notification dated
27.01.2014 of Ministry of Minority Affairs, notifying Jaina community as
minority community and proceeded to compare the religious practices of the
members of Jaina community with that of the Hindu religion and concluded that
the practices followed by members of Jaina community are distinguishable,
specially, with regard to the marriage. Therefore, the members of Jaina
community are not bound by Hindu Law. Learned Principal Judge mentioning
the distinctive features of the customs and rituals practiced by the members of
Jaina community, concluded that the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are
not applicable to the members of Jaina community, therefore, they may apply for
dissolution of marriage in accordance with their customs and rituals under
Section 7 of the Family Courts Act.
3/ The impugned order is assailed in the present appeals on following
grounds:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7735
i) As per Section 2 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the provisions of the
Act are applicable to the parties.
ii) There was no amendment in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in view of
the notification declaring Jaina Community as a minority community to
exclude the community from the application of the Act.
iii) The Impugned order is against the law and the Constitution.
On these grounds, it is prayed that the Impugned order be set aside and the
appellant be granted relief of dissolution of marriage.
4/ Learned counsel for the Respondent supports the appeal and contends that
the Impugned order was passed without according proper opportunity of hearing
to the parties.
5/ Heard both the parties.
6/ The points for determination in present appeal are as under: -
(i) Whether in view of the notification dated 27.1.2014 issued by Ministry of
Minority Affairs notifying Jaina Community as a minority community, the
Appellant being member of Jaina community is excluded from application of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
(ii) Whether learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore has
committed an illegality or impropriety in returning the petition filed under
Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for presentation under Section 7 of the
Family Courts Act 1984?
POINT FOR DETERMINATION NO. (i) & (ii) - REASONS FOR CONCLUSION
The reasons and conclusion for both the points for determination are inter-
connected, therefore, they are evaluated together.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7735
Learned Additional Principal Judge relying on judgments of various High
Courts and Treaties observed as under:-
यह सहही हहै ककि उकक्त पप्रावधप्राननों ममें जहैन धमर्म किके अननुयप्रायययनों किको भही यहननन्दू किके रूप ममें पररिभप्रायषिक्त ककियप्रा गयप्रा हहै , ककिकिंक्तनु जहैन
धमर्म किप्रा अपनप्रा एकि यवयशिषष्ट इयक्तहप्रास हहै औरि मन्दूलक्त: जहैन धमर्म एवकिं यहननन्दू धमर्म किके मन्दूलभन्दूक्त यसदप्राकिंक्तनों ममें किई यभननक्तप्राएन्दूएूँ हहैं।
यह ककि, यहननन्दू धमर्म किकी मप्रानयक्तप्रा किके अननुसप्रारि ब्रमहप्राणण्ड किकी रिचनप्रा ब्रमहप्रा दप्रारिप्रा किकी गई थही, जबककि जहैन धमर्म किके अननुसप्रारि यह
मप्रानयक्तप्रा नहहीं हहै ककि ब्रमहप्राणण्ड किकी रिचनप्रा ब्रमहप्रा दप्रारिप्रा किकी गई थही, बयलकि जहैन धमर्म किके अननुसप्रारि ब्रमहप्राणण्ड किकी रिचनप्रा किभही
नहहीं हुई थही, कयनोंककि ब्रमहप्राणण्ड शिप्राशवक्त हहै।
यहननन्दू धमर्म किके अननुसप्रारि आतमप्रा औरि परिमप्रातमप्रा किको अलग-अलग मप्रानप्रा गयप्रा हहै औरि यह मप्रानप्रा जप्राक्तप्रा हहै ककि जहीवन किप्रा अनक्त
हकोनके परि आतमप्रा किप्रा पनुन : परिमप्रातमप्रा ममें यवलय हको जप्राक्तप्रा हहै, जबककि जहैन धमर्म किके अननुसप्रारि पतयकेकि आतमप्रा सवयकिं परिमआतमप्रा
हकोक्तही हहै।
यह ककि, यहननन्दू धमर्म ममें किई नकेवही-नकेवक्तप्राओं किकी पन्दूजप्रा किकी जप्राक्तही हहै, जबककि जहैन धमर्म ममें क्तहीथर्थंकिरिनों किकी पन्दूजप्रा किकी जप्राक्तही हहै।
यह ककि, यहननन्दू धमर्म ममें यवयभनन जप्रायक्तयनों औरि वगर्गों किप्रा समप्रावकेशि हहै , जबककि जहैन धमर्म ममें जप्रायक्त औरि वगर्म किके आधप्रारि परि किकोई
यवभप्राजन नहहीं हहै।
यह ककि, यहननन्दू धमर्म ममें वकेन, उपयनषिन ओरि समस्मृयक्त जहैसके गकिंथनों किको पयवत्र मप्रानप्रा जप्राक्तप्रा हहै , ककिकिंक्तनु जहैन धमर्म दप्रारिप्रा वकेन एवकिं यहननन्दू
धमर्म किके अनय गकिंथनों किको सवहीकिप्रारि नहहीं ककियप्रा जप्राक्तप्रा हहै औरि जहैन धमर्म किके पप्रास ''आगम'' औरि ''सन्दूत्र'' जहैसके अपनके पस्मृथकि पयवत्र
गकिंथ हहैं।
इसकिके अयक्तररिकक्त जहहॉं क्तकि नकोननों धमर्गों ममें यववप्राह किकी अवधप्रारिणप्रा किप्रा पशन हहै , क्तको जहैन धमर्म ममें यववप्राह किप्रा मनुखय उदकेशय
सवयकिं किके धमर्म सके सकिंबकिंयधक्त मप्रानव जप्रायक्त किकी यनरिकिंक्तरिक्तप्रा बनप्रायके रिखनप्रा हहै औरि जहैन धमर्म किकी इस अवधप्रारिणप्रा ममें किकोई धप्रारमर्मकि
उदकेशय शिप्रायमल नहहीं मप्रानप्रा जप्राक्तप्रा हहै, जबककि यहननन्दू धमर्म ममें यववप्राह किकी अवधप्रारिणप्रा किके अननुसप्रारि यववप्राह किको एकि पयवत्र
धप्रारमर्मकि सकिंसकिप्रारि मप्रानप्रा जप्राक्तप्रा हहै, जहैसप्रा ककि नयप्रायनस्मृषष्टप्राकिंक्त ण्डडॉलही रिप्रानही यवरुद मनहीषि किनुमप्रारि चकिंचल 2024 आई.एन.एस.सही.
355 यनणर्मय कननप्राकिंकि 19.04.2024 ममें मप्राननहीय सनुपहीम किकोष्टर्म दप्रारिप्रा यनधप्रार्मररिक्त ककियप्रा गयप्रा हहै।
इसकिके अयक्तररिकक्त जहहॉं क्तकि जहैन धमर्म किके अननुयप्रायययनों किको कनयके गयके अलपसकिंखयकि समनुनप्राय किके सक्तरि किप्रा पशन हहै , क्तको इस सकिंबकिंध
ममें भही जहैन धमर्म किके अननुयप्रायययनों दप्रारिप्रा सवयकिं किको अलपसकिंखयकि घकोयषिक्त ककियके जप्रानके किकी मप्राकिंग एकि शिक्तप्राबनही सके भही अयधकि पनुरिप्रानही
रिहही हहै औरि जहैन धमर्म किके अननुयप्रायययनों दप्रारिप्रा मप्राचर्म -अपहैल 1947 ममें हही सकिंयवधप्रान सभप्रा किके सप्रामनके जहैन धमर्म किके अननुयप्रायययनों किको
अलपसकिंखयकि धप्रारमर्मकि समनुनप्राय किके रूप ममें मप्रानयक्तप्रा किकी मप्राकिंग किकी गई थही औरि उकक्त पकिस्मृयक्त किकी मप्राकिंग लगप्राक्तप्रारि यनरिकिंक्तरि रिहनके
किके आधप्रारि परि हही वषिर्म 2014 ममें किकेनन्द्र सरिकिप्रारि दप्रारिप्रा जहैन धमर्म किको अलपसकिंखयकि धप्रारमर्मकि समनुनप्राय किके रूप ममें मप्रानयक्तप्रा पनप्रान
किकी गई हहै औरि जहैन धमर्म किके अननुयप्रायययनों किको बहुसकिंखयकि यहननन्दू धमर्म किके अननुयप्रायययनों सके एकि पस्मृथकि मप्रानयक्तप्रा पनप्रान किकी गई हहै।
अक्त: ऐसही यसथयक्त ममें सपषष्ट हहै ककि जहैन धमर्म किके अननुयप्रायययनों किको भही अपनही धप्रारमर्मकि एवकिं सप्रामप्रायजकि मप्रानयक्तप्राओं क्तथप्रा
परिकिंपरिप्राओं किप्रा सवक्तकिंत्र रूप सके पप्रालन किरिनके किप्रा सकिंवहैधप्रायनकि अयधकिप्रारि पप्रापक्त हहै औरि ऐसही यसथयक्त ममें हजप्रारिनों वषिर्म पनुरिप्रानके जहैन
धमर्म किके अननुयप्रायययनों किको यवपरिहीक्त यवचप्रारिधप्रारिप्रा वप्रालके यहननन्दू धमर्म किकी यवयधयनों किप्रा पप्रालन किरिनके किके यलयके यववशि ककियप्रा जप्रानप्रा
यनयश्चिक्त रूप सके जहैन धमर्म किके अननुयप्रायययनों किको पप्रापक्त धप्रारमर्मकि सवक्तकिंत्रक्तप्रा किके सकिंवहैधप्रायनकि अयधकिप्रारि सके वकिंयचक्त किरिनके किके समक्तनुलय
हहै।
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7735
यह ककि, क्तकिर्म किके समय इस आशिय किप्रा भही क्तकिर्म ककियप्रा गयप्रा हहै ककि जहैन धमर्म किके अननुयप्रायही दप्रारिप्रा भही यववप्राह किके समय यहननन्दू
यववप्राह अयधयनयम किकी धप्रारिप्रा 7 ममें उललकेयखक्त सपक्तपनही सकिंसकिप्रारि किप्रा पप्रालन ककियप्रा जप्राक्तप्रा हहै औरि इस किप्रारिण ऐसही अननुयप्रायही
किको यहननन्दू यववप्राह अयधयनयम किकी धप्रारिप्रा 13 किके अकिंक्तगर्मक्त भही अननुक्तकोषि पप्रानके किप्रा अयधकिप्रारि हहै।
इस सकिंबकिंध ममें नसवहीं शिक्तप्राबनही ममें आचप्रायर्म शही वधर्ममप्रान सन्दूरिहीशवरिजही महप्रारिप्राज दप्रारिप्रा रियचक्त गकिंथ ''आचप्रायर्म कननकिरि गकिंथ'' किप्रा
उललकेख ककियप्रा जप्रानप्रा आवशयकि हहै, यजसकिके चचौनहवमें खणण्ड ममें जहैन मप्रानयक्तप्राओं किके अननुसप्रारि यववप्राह किके यलयके ककियके जप्रानके वप्रालके
समपन्दूणर्म अननुषषप्राननों किप्रा उललकेख ककियप्रा गयप्रा हहै, यजसकिके अननुसप्रारि जहैन यववप्राह यवयध ममें सथप्रापनप्रा यवयध, आतमरिकप्रा, मकिंत्रसनप्रान,
ककेत्रपप्राल पन्दूजप्रा, मनधकोड़ बकिंधन, अरिहक्त पन्दूजन, यसद पन्दूजन, गप्राकिंधप्रारि पन्दूजन, शिप्रासत्र पन्दूजन, चचौबहीस यक ययकणही पन्दूजन, नस
कनगपप्रालन पन्दूजन, सकोलह यवदप्रानकेवही पन्दूजन, बप्रारि रिप्रायशि पन्दूजन, नवगह पन्दूजन, सतययवशि नकत्र पन्दूजन, चकोरिण पयक्तषषप्रा,
यवयध पयक्तषषप्रा, हसक्तयमलप्राप, पनयकणप्रा (चप्रारि बप्रारि), वरिमप्रालप्रा, अयभससकिंचन, सप्राक्त पयक्तजप्रा, आरिक्तही एवकिं कमप्रायप्राचनप्रा ककियके
जप्रानके किप्रा उललकेख ककियप्रा गयप्रा हहै यजससके सपषष्ट हहै ककि जहैन धमर्म ममें उललकेयखक्त यववप्राह यवयध यहननन्दू धमर्म ममें उललकेयखक्त यववप्राह
यवयध सके यभनन हहै।
अक्त: यह क्तथय क्तको सपषष्ट रूप सके पमप्रायणक्त हहै ककि जहैन धमर्म एकि ऐसप्रा धमर्म हहै , जको यहननन्दू धमर्म किकी बनुयनयप्रानही वहैकनकि परिकिंपरिप्राओं
औरि मप्रानयक्तप्राओं किप्रा यवरिकोध किरिक्तप्रा हहै औरि वहैकनकि परिमपरिप्रा परि आधप्राररिक्त नहहीं हहै , जबककि यहननन्दू धमर्म पन्दूणर्म रूप सके वहैकनकि
परिमपरिप्रा परि आधप्राररिक्त हहै।
अक्त: उपरिकोकक्त सकिंपन्दूणर्म यवशलकेषिण सके यह क्तथय यनयश्चिक्त रूप सके पमप्रायणक्त हहै ककि जहैन धमर्म यनरवर्मवप्रान रूप सके यहननन्दू धमर्म किप्रा
यहससप्रा नहहीं हहै औरि जहैन धमर्म किके अननुयप्रायययनों किकी लगभग 100 वषिर्म पनुरिप्रानही मप्राकिंग सवहीकिप्रारि किरिक्तके हुए किकेनन्द्र सरिकिप्रारि दप्रारिप्रा
भप्रारिक्त किके रिप्राजपत्र ममें कननप्राकिंकि 27.01.2014 किको पकिप्रायशिक्त अयधसन्दूचनप्रा सके यह क्तथय भही पमप्रायणक्त हहै ककि किकेनन्द्र सरिकिप्रारि दप्रारिप्रा
जहैन समनुनप्राय अथप्रार्मक्त जहैन धमर्म किके अननुयप्रायययनों किको अलपसकिंखयकि समनुनप्राय किके रूप ममें अयधसन्दूयचक्त ककियप्रा जप्रा चनुकिप्रा हहै।
अक्त: ऐसही यसथयक्त ममें यहननन्दू धमर्म किकी मन्दूलभन्दूक्त वहैकनकि परिकिंपरिप्राओं किको यसरिके सके नकिप्रारिनके वप्रालके औरि पन्दूवर्म उललकेयखक्त वषिर्म 2014 किकी
रिप्राजपत्र अयधसन्दूचनप्रा किके पशचप्राक्त सवयकिं किको बहुसकिंखयकि यहननन्दू समनुनप्राय सके पस्मृथकि अलपसकिंखयकि समनुनप्राय किके रूप ममें सथप्रायपक्त किरि
चनुकिके जहैन धमर्म किके ककिसही अननुयप्रायही किको उनकिके धमर्म सके यवपरिहीक्त मप्रानयक्तप्राओं वप्रालके धमर्म सके सकिंबकिंयधक्त वययक्तिगक्त यवयध किप्रा लप्राभ
कनयप्रा जप्रानप्रा उयचक्त पक्तहीक्त नहहीं हकोक्तप्रा हहै।
अक्त: सपषष्ट हहै ककि उकक्त नयप्राययसदप्रानक्त किके आलकोकि ममें यहननन्दू धमर्म किके मन्दूलभन्दूक्त यसदप्राकिंक्तनों यवरिकोध किरिनके वप्रालके औरि बहुसकिंखयकि
यहननन्दू समनुनप्राय सके सवयकिं किको सवकेचचप्रा सके अलग किरि अलपसकिंखयकि समनुनप्राय किके रूप ममें सथप्रायपक्त किरि चनुकिके जहैन धमर्म किके ककिसही
पककिप्रारि दप्रारिप्रा अपनके हजप्रारिनों वषिर्म पन्दूवर्म सके सनुसथप्रायपक्त वहैभवशिप्रालही एवकिं गचौरिव सके पररिपन्दूणर्म जहैन धमर्म ममें वययक्तिगक्त यवयध सके
सकिंबकिंयधक्त यववप्राननों किके सकिंबकिंध ममें पचयलक्त एवकिं सनुसथप्रायपक्त धप्रारमर्मकि एवकिं सप्रामप्रायजकि परिमपरिप्राओं किप्रा अयभवचन किरिक्तके हुए
यनयश्चिक्त रूप सके ऐसके यववप्रान किके सकिंबकिंध ममें किनुष्टनुकिंब नयप्रायप्रालय अयधयनयम, 1984 किकी धप्रारिप्रा 7 किके अकिंक्तगर्मक्त किनुष्टनुकिंब नयप्रायप्रालय
अयधयनयम, 1984 किकी धप्रारिप्रा 7 किके अकिंक्तगर्मक्त किनुष्टनुकिंब नयप्रायप्रालय किके समक पकिरिण पसक्तनुक्त ककियप्रा जप्रा सकिक्तप्रा हहै औरि इस किप्रारिण
यहननन्दू धमर्म किके मन्दूलभन्दूक्त यसदप्राकिंक्तनों किप्रा यवरिकोध किरिनके किके पशचप्राक्त भही ककिसही जहैन धमर्म किके अननुयप्रायही किको अपनके धमर्म किकी मन्दूलभन्दूक्त
मप्रानयक्तप्राओं किके यवपरिहीक्त मप्रानयक्तप्राओं वप्रालके यहननन्दू धमर्म सके सकिंबकिंयधक्त वययक्तिगक्त यवयध किप्रा अननुसरिण किरिनके किकी किकोई वहैधप्रायनकि
बप्राधयक्तप्रा शिकेषि नहहीं रिहक्तही हहै। अक्त: उपरिकोकक्त सकिंपन्दूणर्म यवशलकेषिण किके आधप्रारि परि यह यनषकिषिर्म कनयप्रा जप्राक्तप्रा हहै ककि ''यहननन्दू धमर्म किकी
मन्दूलभन्दूक्त वहैकनकि मप्रानयक्तप्राओं किको असवहीकिप्रारि किरिनके वप्रालके एवकिं सवयकिं किको बहुसकिंखयकि यहननन्दू समनुनप्राय सके अलग किरिकिके अलपसकिंखयकि
समनुनप्राय किके रूप ममें सथप्रायपक्त किरि चनुकिके जहैन धमर्म किके अननुयप्रायययनों किको पन्दूवर्म उललकेयखक्त रिप्राजपत्र अयधसन्दूचनप्रा कननप्राकिंकि
27.01.2014 किके पशचप्राक्त यहननन्दू यववप्राह अयधयनयम किके अकिंक्तगर्मक्त अननुक्तकोषि पप्रापक्त किरिनके किप्रा किकोई अयधकिप्रारि शिकेषि नहहीं रिहप्रा हहै ,
ककिकिंक्तनु जहैन धमर्म किप्रा किकोई भही अननुयप्रायही अपनके जहैन धमर्म किकी हजप्रारिनों वषिर्म पनुरिप्रानही सनुसथप्रायपक्त धप्रारमर्मकि एवकिं सप्रामप्रायजकि परिकिंपरिप्राओं
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7735
किप्रा अयभवचन किरिक्तके हुए किनुष्टनुकिंब नयप्रायप्रालय अयधयनयम किकी धप्रारिप्रा 7 किके अकिंक्तगर्मक्त अपनके ककिसही वहैवप्रायहकि यववप्रान किको यनरिप्राकिरिण
हकेक्तनु किनुष्टनुकिंब नयप्रायप्रालय किके समक पसक्तनुक्त किरिनके किके यलयके पन्दूणर्मक्त: सवक्तकिंत्र हहै''।
8/ The present day society is fragmented on religion, caste, sects, origin and
language. Learned Additional Principal Judge attempted to find out the
differences between the religious practices of followers of Hindu religion and
that of the Jaina community, to bolster his conclusion that religious practice and
customs especially regarding marriage are distinguishable. However, the
practices stated in the impugned order itself show that the marriage rituals
performed by followers of both the communities are generally similar. The
learned Additional Principal Judge ought to have applied the explicit legal
provisions to the matter under consideration rather than engaging in scholarly
interpretation of rituals and practices of Jaina community. Be that as it may, the
law of the land as it exists today is being considered in the following discussion.
9/ The Part III of the Constitution of India provides for the Right to Freedom
of religion. Article 25 provides as under: -
"25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and
propagation of religion-(1) Subject to public order, morality and health
and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to
freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and
propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or
prevent the State from making any law--
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other
secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of
Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and
sections of Hindus.
Explanation I.--The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to
be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.
Explanation II -- In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to
Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7735
professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to
Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly."
10/ The Hindu Marriage Validity Act, 1949 was passed to validate all the
existing marriages between Hindus, Sikhs and Jaina and their different castes
subcastes and sects. Section 2 of the Act defines "Hindu" as including the
persons professing Sikh or Jaina religion. Section 3 of the said Act explicitly
states that no marriage between Hindus, including Sikh and Jaina, shall be
deemed invalid by virtue of any other existing law, interpretation, text, rule,
custom or usage.
11/ Thereafter, the Hindu Marriage Act was passed on 18 th May 1955. It is an
Act to amend and codify the law relating to marriage among Hindus.
12/ Section 2 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides as under: -
2. Application of Act -- (1) This Act applies--
(a) to any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms or
developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the
Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj,
(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion, and
(c) to any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act
extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion, unless it
is proved that any such person would not have been governed by the
Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in respect of any
of the matters dealt with herein if this Act had not been passed.
Explanation.--The following persons are Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas or
Sikhs by religion, as the case may be:--
(a) any child, legitimate or illegitimate, both of whose parents are
Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas or Sikhs by religion;
(b) any child, legitimate or illegitimate, one of whose parents is a
Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion and who is brought up as
a member of the tribe, community, group or family to which such
parent belongs or belonged; and
(c) any person who is a convert or re-convert to the Hindu,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7735
Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh religion.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing
contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled tribe
within the meaning of clause (25) of article 366 of the Constitution unless
the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise
directs.
(3) The expression "Hindu" in any portion of this Act shall be
construed as if it included a person who, though not a Hindu by
religion, is, nevertheless, a person to whom this Act applies by virtue
of the provisions contained in this section."
13/ Thus, the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act are applicable to all the
persons, who are Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion. The Sub-section (3) of
Section 2 fortifies the applicability of Hindu Marriage Act to the members of
Jaina community. These express provisions of the law were unfortunately not
considered in the correct perspective by the learned Additional Principal Judge.
14/ In case of CWT v. Champa Kumari Singhi, reported in (1972) 1 SCC 508,
while considering the question, whether a 'Jaina undivided family' is included in
the expression 'Hindu undivided family', it was observed that-
"5. The main reasoning which prevailed with the High Court is that although Hindu
law applies to Jainas except insofar as such law is varied by custom, Jainas do not
become Hindus in the same way as Khojas and Cutchi Memons of Bombay and Sunni
Borahs of Gujarat etc. cannot be regarded as Hindus although Hindu law applies to
them in matters of inheritance and succession. Moreover, Hinduism does not include
Hindu converts to Christianity and Islam and also dissenters from Hinduism who
formed themselves into distinct communities or sects with peculiar religious usages so
divergent from the principles of the Shastras that they could not be regarded as Hindus.
Reliance was placed on the decision of the Mysore High Court in P.F. Pinto
v.Commissioner of Wealth Tax,Mysore [65 ITR 123]. In that case the ancestors of the
assessee were originally Hindus. They later on became converts to Christianity. It was
found that although for the purposes of succession to property the Hindu law was still
applicable to the family of the assessee, he could be assessed only as an individual for
wealth tax purposes and could not be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided
family. The Mysore High Court was inclined to the view that the expression "Hindu
undivided family" in Section 3 of the Act was limited to Mitakshra families or families
of persons professing Hindu religion governed by Mitakshra law and thus, it could not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7735
include a Christian undivided family although governed by Hindu law. The Calcutta
High Court in the judgment under appeal, however, did not consider that the Mysore
High Court was right in holding that Section 3 of the Act was limited only to Mitakshra
families. It may be pointed out that so far as Income tax law is concerned the
expression "Hindu undivided family" has been held to have reference to all schools of
Hindu law and not to one school only. (See Kalyani Vithal Das v.CIT[LR 64 IA 28] .)
6.The real question for determination is whether the word "Hindu" preceding the words
"undivided family" signifies that the "undivided family" should be of those: (i) who
profess Hindu religion; or (ii) to whom Hindu law applies; or (iii) who though not
professing Hindu religion have come to be regarded as Hindu undivided family by
judicial decisions and legislative practice. It may be mentioned that for a long time the
courts and particularly the Privy Council seem to have taken the view that Jainas are of
Hindu origin; they are Hindu dissenters and although generally adhering to the ordinary
Hindu Law they do not recognise any divine authority of the Vedas nor do they practice
a number of ceremonies observed by the Hindus. But the modern trend of authority is
against the view that Jainas are Hindu dissenters. As a result of comparative research in
Hinduism, Jainaism and Buddhism, it is being emphatically claimed that the theory that
Jainas are Hindu dissenters is based on a misreading of the ancient authorities relating
to these religions (See C.R. Jaina --Jaina Law-- pp. 3-23 and 219-58). One of the
early decisions in which Jainas were stated to be of Hindu origin being Hindu
dissenters is that of Westropp, C.J., in Bhagwandas Tejmal v. Rajmal [(1873) 10 Bom
HCR 241]. The learned Chief Justice based his view on high authority including the
researches of Mr Mountstuart Elphinstone, Late Col. Mackenzie (9th Vol. of the Asiatic
Researches, including the essay of Mr Cole Brooke on the Sect of Jainas), the work of
Abbe Dubois on the Manners etc. of the People of India and the elaborate account of
the Jaina sect in the First Volume of Prof. H.H. Wilson's work. He also referred to
certain decisions of the Sudder Divani Adalut in Calcutta and the High Court of
Calcutta; in particular to the opinion of Peacock, C.J. In Lala Mohabeer Pershad
v.Musammut Kundar Koover [8 Cal W Rep 116 Civ Rul]. The following passage from
the judgment of Westropp, C.J. is noteworthy:
"The term Hindu or Gentu, when used in Regulations Act, Statutes, and
Charters in which Hindus or Gentus have been declared entitled to the benefit of
their own law of succession and of contract, has been largely and liberally
construed. See the remarks at pp. 184, 185, 186, 5 Bom. High Court Reports
(Lopes v. Lopes), where Sir Edward Hyde East's evidence in 1830 before the
House of Lords' Committee is mentioned, in which he stated that Sikhs were
treated as a sect of Hindus or Gentus of which they were a dissenting branch.
The authorities, already quoted, show that Jaina are regarded as a sect of
Hindus."
Out of the decisions of the Privy Council, we may mention Sheokuarbai v.
Jeoraj [AIR 1921 PC 77] in which Their Lordships relied on the statement in Mayne's
Hindu Law and Usage that Jainas are of Hindu origin; they are Hindu dissenters and
although "generally adhering to ordinary Hindu law, that is, the law of the three
superior castes, they recognise no divine authority in the Vedas and do not practice the
Shradha or ceremonies for the dead".
The above view has been challenged by Jaina historians and writers and it has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7735
been maintained that the Jainas are quite distinct from Hindus and have a separate code
of law which unfortunately was not brought to the notice of the courts. Kumaraswami
Sastri, Officiating Chief Justice, delivering the judgment of the Bench in Bobbaladi
Gateppa v. Bobbaladi Eramma [AIR 1927 Mad 228] elaborately discussed the contrary
view and observed that if the matter were res integra he would be inclined to hold that
modern research had shown that Jainas were not Hindu dissenters but that Jainaism had
an origin and history long anterior to Smritis and commentaries which were recognised
authorities of Hindu law and usage.
7.Mr C.R. Jaina in his work "Jainas Law" written in 1926, has discussed the findings
of various Orientalists subsequent to those mentioned in the judgment of Westropp, C.J.
and has put forward the thesis that Hinduism and Jainaism were parallel creeds though
they shared the same form of social order and mode of living. Jaina law was quite
independent of Hindu law. According to him the Courts had tried on each occasion to
ascertain the Jaina Law but unfortunately for various reasons Jainas concealed their
Shastras and objected to their production in Courts. He has emphasised that Jaina Law
which is found in the available books should still be applied and the error which has
crept in the matter of Jainas being governed by Hindu Law should be rectified. Since
1926 there have been several enactments apart from the codification of certain major
Branches of Hindu law which in express terms have been made applicable to Jainas.
The course suggested by C.R. Jaina cannot possibly be followed particularly in the
presence of statutory enactments.
8. In Panna Lal v. Sitabai [ILR 1954 Nag 30] Hidayatullah, J. (as he then was)
delivering the judgment of the Division Bench observed that it was too late in the day
to contend that "Jainas" are not included in the term "Hindus" for the purposes of law.
He referred to Mayne's Hindu Law as also the leading cases on the point apart from
West and Buhler's Hindu Law (4th Edn.), Gopal Chandra Sarkar's Hindu Law (7th
Edn.) and Hari Singh Gour's Hindu Code (4th Edn.). All these are acknowledged
authorities and the conclusion which was derived not only from the statements
contained in their works on Hindu law but also from decided cases was that the Jainas
were to be regarded as Hindus for the purposes of law though they seem to dissent from
some of the principles of orthodox Hinduism. In Nagpur case the question which was
being considered was whether, the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 was
meant to apply to Jainas as well or to Hindus proper. It was in that connection that the
extent to which Jainas were governed by Hindu law or were to be treated as Hindus for
purposes of that law came up for discussion. The following passage may be reproduced
with advantage:
"The Legislature must be taken to be aware of the pronouncements of the Privy
Council as well as the leading decisions of the Indian High Courts where a
liberal interpretation was given to the term "Hindu". We do not think that the
Legislature used the term without advertence to these dicta and, in our
judgment, the Legislature must be deemed to have used the term "Hindu" in that
larger sense which has been explained by Mayne at p. 5 of his treatise in the
passage quoted by us elsewhere and which has been the foundation of decisions
on the subject in the courts of India."
It may be mentioned that the statement from Mayne's Hindu Law referred to
above is the same which was relied upon by the Privy Council in Sheokuarbai v.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7735
Jeoraj.
9. We may next notice certain decisions in which the word "Hindu" as used in various
statutes came to be interpreted by the Courts. In Kamawati v. Digbijai Singh [AIR 1922
PC 14] Section 331 of the Indian Succession Act, 1865, has to be interpreted.
According to that section the provisions of that Act were not to apply to intestate or
testamentary succession to the property of any Hindu. It was held that the person who
had ceased to be a Hindu in religion and had become a Christian could not elect to be
bound by the Hindu Law in the matter of succession after the passing of the Indian
Succession Act and that a Hindu convert to Christianity was solely governed by that
Act. In other words, according to the Privy Council a person who had ceased to be a
Hindu by religion was not a Hindu within the meaning of Section 331 of the aforesaid
Act. It was held in Bachebi v. Makhan Lal [ILR 3 All 55] that the term "Hindu" in
Section 331 of the Indian Succession Act, 1865, included a Jaina and consequently in
matters of succession Jainas were not governed by that Act. It was pointed out that the
ordinary Hindu law of inheritance was to be applied to Jainas in the absence of proof of
custom or usage varying that law. The Privy Council in Bhagwan Koer v. J.C. Bose
[ILR 31 Cal 11] expressed the view that a Sikh was a "Hindu" within the meaning of
that term as used in Section 2 of the Probate and Administration Act, 1881. It was
pointed out that the Courts had always acted upon the premise that Sikhs were Hindus
and that Hindu Law applied to them in the same way as it applied to Jainas in the
absence of custom varying that law. It was observed:
"It appears to Their Lordships to be clear that in Section 331 the term "Hindu"
is used in the same wide sense as in earlier enactments, and includes Sikhs. If it
be not so, then Sikhs were, and are, in matters of inheritance, governed by the
Succession Act, and Act based upon, and in the main embodying, the English
law; and it could not be seriously suggested that such was the intention of the
Legislature."
10. In Ambalal v. Keshav Bandhochand Gujar, [ILR 1941 Bom 250] the question
was whether Jainas were governed by Hindu law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act,
1929, which applied to all persons governed by Mitakshara as modified by the
Mayukha. It was argued in that case that the Indian Succession (Amendment) Act of
1929 speaks of Jainas as well as Hindus and Sections 4 and 57 of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925, also did the same. The Court pointed out that Section 331 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1865, did not make any separate mention of Jainas and even then it had
been held that the term "Hindu" included Jainas. The Hindu Wills Act of 1870 which
applied to the territories under the Lt. Governor of Bengal and the cities of Bombay and
Madras no doubt mentioned Jainas as well as Hindus being governed by certain
sections of the Succession Act of 1865 and the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was a
consolidating Act which repealed the previous Act of 1865 as well as the Hindu Wills
Act of 1870. It was, therefore, probably thought necessary ex majors cautela to
separately mention the Jainas in the consolidating measure. However, in all the other
enactments affecting the Hindu Law there was no separate mention of Jainas along with
the Hindus. The Jainas were, therefore, governed by the Hindu Law of Inheritance
(Amendment) Act, 1929. The mention of Jainas separately in Article 25 of the
Constitution was noticed in Pannalal v. Sitabai and it was observed that the framers of
the Constitution felt, having regard to the differences in the two faiths that an express
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7735
mention might be made of all faiths ex abundanti cautela and to put the matter beyond
all controversy, and that faith is one thing and law is another and the Constitution could
not be taken to have undone the long series of decisions on the subject. Before the
amendment and codification of major branches of Hindu law by the four statutes i.e.
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Hindu Minority
and Guardianship Act, 1956, the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the
undisputed position was that the Jainas were governed by the Hindu law modified by
custom and a Jaina joint family was a Hindu joint family with all the incidents attached
to such a family under the Hindu law. The legislative practice also was to generally
treat Jainas as included in the term "Hindu" in various statutory enactments. Wherever
Jainas were mentioned in addition it was by way of abundant caution. The new statutes
did not change the situation and it is not possible how the High Court in the judgment
under appeal pressed them into service in support of its view. The fallacy underlying
the reasoning of the High Court is that the artificial field of application of the law in
those statutes shows that Jainaism is not treated even as a form or a development of
Hinduism. That is an erroneous approach. We are not concerned with the question
whether Jainas are a sect of Hindus or Hindu dissenters. Even if the religions are
different, what is common is that all those who are to be governed by the provisions of
these enactments are included in the term "Hindu". They are to be governed by the
same rules relating to marriage, succession, minority, guardianship, adoption and
maintenance as Hindus. The statutes thus accord legislative recognition to the fact that
even though Jainas may not be Hindus by religion they are to be governed by the same
laws as the Hindus. In this view of the matter the expression "Hindu undivided family"
will certainly include the "Jaina undivided family". The latter class of family is not
known to law. The Jainas are governed by all the incidents relating to the Hindu joint
family. Hindu undivided family is a legal expression which has been employed in
taxation laws. It has a definite connotation and embodies the meaning ascribed to the
expression "Hindu joint family". (emphasis added)
11.
15/ The learned Additional Principal Judge, although, made a passing
reference to this Judgment but failed to appreciate aforestated observations.
16/ The notification relied upon by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court is considered. The Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by
Clause (c) of Section 2 of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992
notified the Jaina community as a minority community in addition to five
communities already notified as minority communities viz. Muslims, Christians,
Sikhs, Budhists and Zoroastrians (Parsis) for the purpose of said Act. This
notification recognises Jaina community as a minority community. It does not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7735
amend, invalidate or supersede express provision of any existing laws. No
corresponding amendments have been made to exclude the members of Jaina
community from application of any existing law.
17/ The founders of the Constitution of India and the Legislature in their
collective wisdom have integrated the Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina and Sikh for
application of the Hindu Marriage Act. Both the parties had pleaded that they
married according to Hindu rituals and customs. There was no occasion for
learned Additional Principal Judge to substitute his own views and perceptions
against the express provisions of the law. If the concerned Court was satisfied
that the case pending before it involves a question as to operability of provisions
of the Hindu Marriage Act to the members of Jaina community, it could have
referred the case for opinion of High Court under the proviso to Section 113 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 10 of the Family Courts Act,
1984.
Section 113 provides as under:-
"113. Reference to High Court.--Subject to such conditions and
limitations as may be prescribed, any Court may state a case and refer the
same for the opinion of the High Court, and the High Court may make such
order thereon as it thinks fit:
[Provided that where the Court is satisfied that a case pending before it
involves a question as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or
of any provision contained in an Act, Ordinance or Regulation, the
determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case, and is of
opinion that such Act, Ordinance, Regulation or provision is invalid or
inoperative, but has not been so declared by the High Court to which that
Court is subordinate or by the Supreme Court, the Court shall state a case
setting out its opinion and the reasons therefor, and refer the same for the
opinion of the High Court."
18/ Thus, learned Additional Principal Judge Family Court has committed
grave illegality and manifest impropriety in concluding that the provisions of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7735
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are not applicable to the members of Jaina
Community and returning the petition filed under Section 13B of the Hindu
Marriage Act for being presented under section 7 of the Family Courts Act.
19/ Consequently, the impugned order dated 08.02.2025 is set aside. The
appeal is allowed. The 1st Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Indore is
directed to proceed with the Petition in accordance with law.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) ( SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
BDJ
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
BHUNESH
PRADESH BENTCH AT INDORE, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENTCH AT
INDORE,
2.5.4.20=3fb5bcda9fd75d95d6c7cdcbd092ee
WAR DATT
5a74a94a5534aed3a66d9385cfcfc201e0,
postalCode=452001, st=MADHYA PRADESH,
serialNumber=89FD75A8D0C99E05779A3279
74E46BC85102826CE0604B211E4C91102B4D
1269, cn=BHUNESHWAR DATT
Date: 2025.03.24 14:38:46 +05'30'
