“The hope expressed in Article 44 of the Constitution that the State shall secure for its citizens Uniform Civil Code ought not to remain a mere hope,” a bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh mentioned, including that the necessity for a Uniform Civil Code as envisioned beneath Article 44, has been reiterated from time to time by the Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court had, in 1985 directed that the judgment in Ms Jordon Diengdeh (supra) be placed before the Ministry of Law to take appropriate steps. However, more than three decades have passed since then and it is unclear as to what steps have been taken in this regard to date. Accordingly, let the copy of the present judgment be communicated to the Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, for necessary action as deemed appropriate,” the court docket mentioned.
“Cases like the present one repeatedly highlight the need for such a Code – ‘common to all, which would enable uniform principles being applied in respect of aspects such as marriage, divorce, succession etc., so that settled principles, safeguards and procedures can be laid down and citizens are not made to struggle due to the conflicts and contradictions in various personal laws,” the court docket mentioned.
“In modern Indian society which is gradually becoming homogenous, the traditional barriers of religion, community and caste are slowly dissipating,” the court docket mentioned.
The court docket noticed that the youth of India belonging to varied communities, tribes, castes or religions who solemnise their marriages ought not to be pressured to wrestle with points arising due to conflicts in varied private legal guidelines, particularly in relation to marriage and divorce.
The court docket’s remark got here whereas listening to a plea in search of the applicability of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in respect of the events who belong to the Meena neighborhood in view of the exclusion beneath Section 2(2) of the HMA, 1955.
The couple bought married on twenty fourth June 2012. A petition in search of divorce beneath Section 13-1(ia) of the HMA, 1955 was filed by the person on 2nd December 2015. The girl e prayed for rejection of the divorce petition, on the bottom that the provisions of the HMA, 1955 don’t apply to the events involved as they’re members of a notified Scheduled Tribe in Rajasthan, and therefore the HMA, 1955 wouldn’t be relevant to the case of the mentioned events in view of Section 2(2) of the HMA, 1955.
The utility was determined by the Family Court and the divorce petition was dismissed by holding that the provisions of the HMA, 1955 don’t prolong to the Meena neighborhood, which is a notified Scheduled Tribe. the person challenged the trial court docket order dated twenty eighth November 2020 within the High Court.
The High Court allowed his attraction to problem the trial court docket order and put aside trial court docket selections.
“The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. The trial court is directed to proceed with the adjudication of the petition under 13-1(a) of the HMA, 1955 on merits and render a decision within six months,” the excessive court docket mentioned.