24 March 2026 Legal Updates

“Section 2(2) HMA Not A License For Polygamy Without Proven Custom: MP High Court”

Case Details

a) Case Title:

• Munni Bai v. Phoolmat Pav & Ors.

b) Court:

• Madhya Pradesh High Court

c) Date of Decision:

• 16 March 2026

d) Bench:

• Justice Vivek Jain

Facts of the Case

The petitioner (Munni Bai) claimed succession rights over the property of deceased Bhagat Singh, asserting that she was his second wife. She argued that both parties belonged to a Scheduled Tribe (Pav tribe) where polygamy was allegedly permissible, and hence she was entitled to a share along with the first wife.

The first wife (Phoolmat Pav) contested this claim, asserting that she was the sole legally recognised spouse. Both the trial court and appellate court rejected the petitioner’s claim, holding that she failed to prove any customary practice of polygamy in the tribe. The petitioner then filed a revision before the High Court.

Issues Raised

• Whether Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act excludes Scheduled Tribes automatically from its application?
• Whether polygamy can be justified merely on the basis of tribal status without proof of custom?
• Whether the petitioner proved the existence of a valid custom permitting polygamy?

Contentions of the Petitioner

• Parties belong to a Scheduled Tribe → HMA not applicable
• Custom of polygamy exists in the tribe

Therefore:

• Second marriage valid
• Entitled to equal share in property

Contentions of the Respondent

• First wife is the only legally recognised spouse
• No valid proof of second marriage
• No established custom of polygamy
• Service records recognise only the first wife

Court’s Reasoning & Key Findings

1. Interpretation of Section 2(2) HMA:

• Section 2(2) does NOT automatically exclude all Scheduled Tribes
• Exclusion applies only when:
• Tribe follows distinct, proven customs

Burden of proof lies on the person claiming exclusion

2. Requirement to Prove Custom:

• Mere oral claim of custom is insufficient
• Custom must be: Ancient, Certain, Continuous, Recognised by the community

Petitioner failed to prove any such custom

3. No Automatic Right to Polygamy:

a) Court held

• Section 2(2) is to protect traditions, not to justify misuse

b) Key observation

• “Not a license to practice polygamy without proof of tradition”

4. Concept of “Hinduisation”:

• Court relied on Supreme Court precedent (Labishwar Manjhi case)
• If tribe:
  • Follows Hindu customs → Hindu law applies

Tribals cannot escape HMA without proving distinct customs

5. Application of Precedents:

a) Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi

• Tribals must prove they are NOT Hinduised

b) Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar

• Second wife may not get rights without valid marriage

Final Verdict

Revision Petition Dismissed

Court held:

• No proof of custom permitting polygamy
• Petitioner not entitled to succession rights

Legal Principles Established

1. Section 2(2) Hindu Marriage Act – Explained:

Section 2(2) excludes Scheduled Tribes from HMA only if they follow their own customs

Key Rule:

• NOT automatic exclusion
• Requires: Proof of distinct tribal customs

2. Customary Law:

Custom must satisfy: Ancient, Continuous, Certain, Reasonable, Recognised by community

Mere assertion is not valid custom

3. Polygamy in Tribal Law:

a) Allowed ONLY IF:

• Proven customary practice exists

b) Otherwise:

• Governed by HMA → Monogamy rule applies

4. Doctrine of Hinduisation:

If tribe adopts Hindu practices:

• Hindu law becomes applicable

Cannot claim tribal exemption selectively

5. Burden of Proof Principle:

• Person claiming: Custom, Exception to law: Must prove it

6. Purpose of Section 2(2):

• Protect: Tribal identity, Traditions

Not meant to:

• Justify illegal practices
• Create loopholes