The Rajasthan High Court recently  upheld a lower court’s decision refusing to dismiss a husband’s divorce petition, rejecting the wife’s application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

The wife had argued that since both she and her husband belong to a Scheduled Tribe, the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) should not apply to them.

 Rejecting her argument, a division bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Anil Kumar Upman  pointed out that there was no mention of any specific or established custom in their community showing that their marriage was performed differently from Hindu marriage ceremonies.

Because of this, the court found no reason to dismiss the husband’s divorce petition.

No Claim Against HMA Rituals:

Additionally, the Court pointed out that it was not claimed anywhere that the community does not follow the rituals and ceremonies under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA).

Court’s Observation on Customs:

The court observed:

“Surprisingly, in her application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, in paras No. 9 & 10, wife has mentioned that marriage between parties was solemnized as per customs of Meena community. Nevertheless, it has been noticed that neither the manner of any prevailing custom of Meena community for solemnization of marriage, in a different manner and procedure as followed by Hindus has been mentioned nor, it has been pleaded that the marriage ceremonies performed by Hindus as per rites and ceremonies envisaged under Hindu Marriage Act, are not followed in the Meena community. Thus, the objection of wife, based on prevailing of any customs in Meena community, is ambiguous and vague,” the bench said.

The Court was hearing  an appeal filed by the wife against the Family Court’s decision, which had refused to dismiss the husband’s divorce petition.

The husband opposed the appeal, submitting that although they belong to the Meena community, they identified as Hindus and got married according to the rites and ceremonies under the Hindu Marriage Act(HMA). 

After  hearing both sides, the Court noted  that the  wife herself had admitted  that their marriage was performed as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. It also noted that  she had earlier  invoked the provisions of the HMA by filing a petition under Section 9 of the Act for  restitution of conjugal rights.

Objection Called Vague:

The Court said  that the wife’s objection about  customs of the Meena community  was unclear and lacked details. 

The Court observed:

“…wife has not made it clear as to what Custom was/is prevailing in the Meena Community, for marriage, dissolution of marriages etc., which attracts applicability of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, to deprive the husband to file divorce petition under Section 13(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act. More so when wife herself has taken resort to Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by filing a separate petition for restitution of conjugal rights.”

In light of these circumstances, the Court held that the Family Court was right in rejecting  the wife’s application.

Final Ruling:

The Bench  said:

“Therefore, at the stage of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, taking into consideration the pleadings averred by husband in his divorce petition, Family Court has not erred in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. At this stage, the divorce petition of husband may not be rejected as not maintainable.”
Accordingly, the appeal was  dismissed.

Case Details: X vs Y (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4323/2025)