Munni Bai v. Phoolmat Pav, 2026
The judgment reinforces that customary law must be strictly proven and cannot be presumed.
Judgement Details
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Date of Decision
24 March 2026
Judges
Justice Vivek Jain
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioner, Munni Bai, claimed to be the second wife of the deceased Bhagat Singh, who died in 2013.
-
The deceased had earlier married Respondent No. 1, Phoolmat Pav, around 1980.
-
The petitioner sought a succession certificate, claiming entitlement to the deceased’s property.
-
She argued that both parties belonged to a Scheduled Tribe (Pav Tribe), where polygamy was allegedly permissible.
-
Based on this claim, she contended that both wives should receive equal shares in the property.
-
The first wife opposed the claim, asserting that she was the legally recognized spouse and her name was recorded in official service records.
-
The Trial Court and Appellate Court rejected the petitioner’s claim due to lack of proof of any such custom.
-
The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the High Court.
Issues
-
Whether Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 permits Scheduled Tribes to practice polygamy without proof of custom?
-
Whether the petitioner successfully proved the existence of a valid customary practice of polygamy in the Pav Tribe?
-
Whether mere tribal status is sufficient to claim exclusion from the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
-
Whether the burden of proving customary practices lies on the person claiming such exclusion?
Held
-
Polygamy cannot be justified without proof of valid customary practice.
-
Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not a blanket exemption.
-
The burden of proving custom lies on the claimant.
-
Absence of proof results in application of general Hindu law.
Analysis
-
The judgment reinforces that customary law must be strictly proven and cannot be presumed.
-
It prevents misuse of Section 2(2) as a shield for polygamy without legal basis.
-
The Court balances respect for tribal autonomy with the need for legal certainty and uniformity.
-
It clarifies that exclusion from codified law requires proof of distinct and continuing social practices.
-
The ruling aligns with Supreme Court jurisprudence requiring strict proof of customary exceptions.
-
It ensures that women’s rights in marriage and succession are not undermined through unproven customs.
-
The decision limits arbitrary invocation of tribal identity to bypass statutory protections.