The intersection of customary tribal law and codified personal laws in India often raises compelling questions about legal identity, cultural assimilation, and statutory applicability. One such critical question recently came before the Delhi High Court in Ajmera Ramulu v. B. Chandrakala (MAT.APP.(F.C.) 148/2024, judgment dated 4 November 2025)—whether a marriage solemnized between two members of the Lambada (Banjara) Scheduled Tribe, but performed according to Hindu rites and rituals, would fall under the ambit of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
The Court’s reasoning not only revisits the boundaries of Section 2(2) of the HMA—which excludes Scheduled Tribes unless notified otherwise—but also engages deeply with the concept of “Hinduisation”, the evolving sociocultural assimilation of tribal groups into mainstream Hindu customs.
Background of the Case
The appellant-husband, a Lambada (Banjara) by tribe and a government officer in Andhra Pradesh, contested the maintainability of divorce proceedings initiated by his wife—an IAS officer of the Uttar Pradesh cadre—under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
He argued that both spouses belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, duly notified under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, and hence were excluded from the operation of the HMA by virtue of Section 2(2), unless the Central Government had expressly notified otherwise.
The wife, however, asserted that the marriage was solemnised in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies, including the sacred fire (Agni), Mangalsutra, Bichiya (toe rings), Alta, and the performance of Saptapadi (seven steps). She further contended that the Lambada community had become sufficiently Hinduised, thereby bringing the marriage within the scope of the HMA.
Family Court’s Findings
The Family Court had dismissed the husband’s objection, observing that although both parties belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, their marriage was performed according to Hindu rites and customs. On this basis, the Family Court held that the proceedings were maintainable under the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Court reasoned that while it could not declare whether the entire Lambada community had been Hinduised, it could determine on a “preponderance of probability” that the particular marriage in question had followed Hindu rituals.
Further, since both parties were socially and educationally advanced, lived in mainstream society rather than in tribal settlements, and had no specialised tribal court to govern matrimonial disputes, applying codified law was deemed appropriate.
Appeal before the Delhi High Court
On appeal, the husband reiterated that:
- The Lambada (Banjara) tribe remains governed by customary tribal law, distinct from Hindu law.
- No Saptapadi was performed, an essential Hindu ceremony under Section 7 of the HMA.
- Thus, the marriage could not be governed by the Hindu Marriage Act.
The wife opposed, producing evidence and literature showing that the Lambada community had assimilated Hindu customs, especially in marriage ceremonies. She also pointed out that the husband himself admitted photographs of rituals resembling Hindu practices, even if he claimed they occurred “after” the marriage.
Issue
The central question before the Delhi High Court was:
- Can a marriage between two members of a Scheduled Tribe, performed according to Hindu rites, be governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, despite Section 2(2) excluding Scheduled Tribes?
Court’s Analysis
1. Applicability of Section 2(2) of the HMA
Section 2(2) of the HMA provides:
“Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.”
The Court emphasised that this exclusion does not operate mechanically. The key determinant is whether the parties, though belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, have adopted Hindu rites and customs to such an extent that their marriage is functionally Hindu in nature.
Hence, cultural assimilation can bring a tribal marriage within the fold of the Act, even without formal governmental notification.
2. The Essential Ceremonies under Section 7
Section 7 of the HMA recognises customary rites and ceremonies of the parties, specifying that the Saptapadi (taking of seven steps before the sacred fire) completes the marriage where it is part of the custom.
The Court clarified that while Saptapadi is a commonly recognised Hindu ceremony, its absence does not invalidate a marriage if the couple performs other customary rites recognised as valid within their tradition. The legislative intent behind Section 7 was to accommodate diversity in Hindu practices, not to enforce uniformity.
3. Determining Whether the Parties Were Hinduised
To assess Hinduisation, the Court examined both sociocultural evidence and judicial precedents.
- The wife’s testimony describing Hindu symbols—red bridal attire, Mangalsutra, Bichiya, Alta, and Saptapadi—was found credible and unchallenged in cross-examination.
- Academic literature, such as the International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences (Vol. 6, Issue 4, 2021), confirmed that Lambada marriage customs now integrate Hindu rituals, including the tying of the Mangalsutra and performing ceremonies before fire.
This, the Court noted, demonstrated a gradual process of Hinduisation where traditional tribal customs have merged with mainstream Hindu practices.
4. Precedent: Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi (2000) 8 SCC 587
Delhi High Court relied heavily on this Supreme Court ruling, where it was held that:
“If members of Scheduled Tribes have become Hinduised and follow Hindu traditions, they cannot be excluded from the operation of the Hindu law statutes.”
This precedent recognised that voluntary adoption of Hindu rites effectively removes the bar under Section 2(2).
Similarly, in Satprakash Meena v. Alka Meena (2021 DHC 1989), the Delhi High Court ruled that when parties from a Scheduled Tribe perform marriages in accordance with Hindu customs, their relationship falls under the HMA.
The current bench followed this interpretative approach, prioritising codified legal protection over relegating modern, educated parties to customary tribal systems lacking formal procedural safeguards.
5. Evidentiary Admissions
The husband’s admissions proved decisive. He:
- Admitted that photographs of the marriage ceremony existed, showing Hindu rituals;
- Failed to produce the videos or photographs despite acknowledging their existence; and
- Did not dispute the wife’s description of the ceremony under cross-examination.
Under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, admitted facts need not be proved, and failure to cross-examine material testimony implies acceptance.
Therefore, the Court drew an adverse inference against the husband and accepted the wife’s version that the marriage followed Hindu rites.
6. Social and Cultural Context
The Court observed that marriage in Hindu law is not merely a civil contract but a sacrament—a sacred union sanctified by religious rites.
Given that the couple were educated, urban, and professionally integrated, the Court found that applying tribal customary law—often uncodified and non-institutionalised—would be antithetical to modern legal protections envisaged under the HMA.
Thus, the marriage bore all the “hallmarks of a Hindu sacrament” and could only be dissolved according to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Decision
After reviewing the evidence, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that:
- The marriage was performed according to Hindu rites and customs.
- The parties were sufficiently Hinduised, and
- Consequently, their marriage was governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, not by tribal customary law.
The husband’s plea for exclusion under Section 2(2) was rejected, reinforcing that Hinduisation overrides tribal exclusion when evidenced by conduct and ceremony.
Conclusion
Delhi High Court’s decision in Ajmera Ramulu v. B. Chandrakala (2025) offers a nuanced response to a complex question—when does cultural assimilation translate into legal inclusion?
By holding that embracing Hindu customs and performing Hindu marriage rituals subjects tribal couples to the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court reaffirmed that law follows lived reality.
Thus, where tribal members voluntarily adopt Hindu ceremonies in marriage, they effectively come within the purview of Hindu law—signifying that embracing Hindu customs does indeed bring tribal marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams