Jain Community Governed by Hindu Marriage Act (HMA)
In a significant ruling, the MP High Court overturned an Indore family court’s order, clarifying that the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), are applicable to the Jain community despite their minority status. The division bench, comprising Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar, set aside the lower court’s decision and directed it to proceed with a pending divorce petition under Section 13B of the HMA.
Background of the Case
The appellants, a married couple since 2017, had filed for mutual divorce under Section 13B of the HMA after living apart for six years due to marital discord. However, the family court returned the petition, ruling that since the Jain community is recognized as a minority (as per a 2014 Ministry of Minority Affairs notification), the HMA did not apply to them. The family court suggested pursuing dissolution under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act instead.
This order was challenged before the Madhya Pradesh High Court on grounds of misapplication of law.
Court Observations on Jain Community and Hindu Marriage Act
- Applicability of HMA Despite Minority Status
The High Court clarified that the 2014 notification, which recognized Jains as a minority community, did not amend, invalidate, or supersede existing laws like the HMA. The court noted: “This notification recognizes Jaina community as a minority community. It does not 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.” - Marriage Rituals and HMA Provisions
The family court had previously argued that Jain marriage rituals differ from Hindu ones, making HMA inapplicable. Rejecting this reasoning, the High Court emphasized that Jain marriages share fundamental similarities with Hindu marriages. It remarked: “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 court criticized the family court judge for overstepping his jurisdiction by engaging in unnecessary interpretation of religious customs instead of applying explicit legal provisions. “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.” - Legal References Supporting HMA’s Applicability
The bench reinforced the applicability of the HMA to Jains by referring to key legal provisions:- Section 2(1)(b) of the HMA: Clearly states that the Act applies to persons who are Buddhists, Jains, or Sikhs by religion.
- Explanation II of Article 25 of the Constitution: Defines “Hindus” to include Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs.
- The Hindu Marriage Validity Act, 1949: Passed to validate marriages between Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, and their sub-castes.
- Legal Misinterpretation by Family Court
The court criticized the family court’s approach, stating that it had failed to correctly interpret the law. The bench remarked: “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.” - Recommendation to Refer Legal Doubts to Higher Court
The High Court further observed that if the family court had any doubts about the operability of the HMA, it could have referred the matter to the High Court under Section 113 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, and Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, instead of ruling incorrectly on its own.
Final Judgment and Directions
The High Court concluded that the family court had committed a “grave illegality” in concluding that HMA provisions did not apply to Jains. It set aside the lower court’s order and directed the family court to proceed with the divorce petition under Section 13B of the HMA.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- Jains, as a Minority, Are Still Governed by the Hindu Marriage Act:
Minority status does not exempt the Jain community from the HMA. - Explicit Legal Provisions Take Precedence Over Religious Interpretations:
Courts must prioritize the law over subjective analysis of religious practices. - Legal Precedents on Hindu Marriage Act and Jain Community Strengthened:
This judgment reinforces the understanding that the HMA applies to Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs by law.
Case Title and Reference
- Case Title: X versus Y
- First Appeal No.: 263 of 2025
- Bench: Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar