Marriage Does Not Alter Caste Status: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a criminal appeal challenging a summoning order passed against nine persons under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (the SC/ST Act), holding that marriage does not change a person’s caste and that the existence of a cross-case is no ground to discard a complaint.

The appeal arose from an order dated July 27, 2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh, in a 2022 case. The trial court had summoned the appellants to face trial under Sections 323 [Section 115 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)], 506 [Section 351 (2)/(3), BNS], 452 (Section 333, BNS) and 354 (Section 74, BNS) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(R) of the SC/ST Act, in connection with an incident at Police Station Khair in Aligarh district.

Before the high court, the appellants contended that they had been falsely implicated. Their primary submission was that prior to the complaint being filed, they had lodged an FIR against the informant and her family members on September 7, 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 308, 504 and 506 IPC. According to them, several of their family members had sustained injuries and injury reports were on record. The present complaint, they argued, was nothing but a counterblast to the earlier FIR.

The appellants also raised a legal objection regarding the applicability of the SC/ST Act. They submitted that the informant was originally a resident of West Bengal and belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community there. However, she had married a person from the Jat community. Once she married outside her caste, they argued, she could no longer claim the benefit of her original caste status. On this basis, they contended that summoning them under Section 3(1)(R) of the SC/ST Act was legally unsustainable.

Opposing the appeal, the state and counsel for the informant submitted that the incident mentioned in the complaint and the incident referred to in the earlier FIR were simultaneous and occurred on the same date. They maintained that during the altercation, the informant was assaulted and subjected to casteist abuses. Three persons, including the informant, were injured in the incident. Therefore, the plea that the complaint was a retaliatory measure had no merit.

After hearing the parties and examining the record, the high court noted that the trial court had considered the statements of the informant and her witnesses, along with injury reports, before issuing the summoning order. It held that the mere existence of a cross-case does not justify discarding a complaint filed by the opposite party based on a rival version. As such, it could not be said that the trial court had committed any illegality in summoning the appellants to face trial.

On the issue of caste status after marriage, court rejected the appellants’ contention.

It observed that although a person may change religion, caste does not change even upon conversion. Marriage, court clarified, does not alter a person’s caste. Consequently, the argument that the informant had lost her caste status after marrying a person from the Jat community was held to be without force.

Finding no illegality in the order of the trial court, the high court dismissed the criminal appeal, thereby affirming the summoning of the appellants under both the IPC and the SC/ST Act.

Case Title: Dinesh And 8 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another

Order Date: February 10, 2026 

Bench: Justice Anil Kumar-X