Substantive law is essential in a society as it tells and specifies laws under which the community is governed. The judgment of Baga Tirkey v. Pinki Linda is a critical case that determines whether the family court act, 1984 hears divorce petitions under customary laws or not. Unlike the Hindu marriage act, 1955, the Customary Laws of the Munda and the Oraon which were followed by the Oraon Tribal Community did not have codified substantive law. Codifying law is vital as its no longer uncertain and makes it easy for society to understand and easily accessible to everybody.

In the case of Baga Tirkey v. Pinki Linda, customary laws have been centered taking into consideration the oraon tribal community. Customary laws are a set of laws that are practiced by local communities and indigenous people. Customary laws are beliefs followed in traditional communities. This paper gives an analysis of the judgment of Baga Tirkey v. Pinki Linda. This paper further explains the acts and provisions used by the high court and supreme court in analyzing the case law. Further, it gives the analytical decision made by the court regarding the divorce petition under the family court act for customary laws.

The court also decides whether to use adjudication and will it be applicable to them as this case was the first which helps the court in deciding whether the family court act, 1984 should take the jurisdiction of tribal communities in respect of their religion or The main issue that arises before the court is whether the family court action should be applicable to the Oraon community or not as there was no codified or substantive law that was applicable to the community.

The family court referred to the book "The customary laws of the Munda and the Oraon" that no substantive codified laws are applicable to the parties as the Oraon community does not have substantive law. Hence, the parties were not governed by the Hindu marriage act, of 1955 because of article 366 of the Indian Constitution which restricted scheduled tribes.

Introduction
The Family Court Act of 1984, which established Family Courts, was passed with the intention of fostering amicable resolution of disputes involving matrimonial and family concerns as well as other connected issues. This Act was passed as a consequence of the law commission's findings and the tireless efforts of numerous women's organizations and NGOs. The 59th Law Commission Report from 1974 recommended that family courts be established by States and that judicial officers be chosen based on expertise. Additionally, the Committee on Status of Women proposed that family conflicts be handled differently than regular civil processes in 1975.

The judgment of Baga Tirkey v. Pinki Linda decides and gives a critical analysis of whether the family court act, 1984, hears divorce petitions under customary laws or not. The parties of the case belong to the Oraon community but due to the absence of substantive codified law, no other codified law like HMA( Hindu Marriage Act,1955), SMA( Special Marriage Act,1954), and Divorce Act, 1869 were applicable to them.

According to the HMA(Hindu Marriage Act,1955), the ground for divorce for adultery of the respondent will not be applicable as the Hindu marriage act is a codified law and a substantive law whereas the party here belongs to the tribal community which is the Oraon community and it has been stated specifically all that under section 2 of HMA,1955 no person who is not Hindu will not be considered under HMA,1955. When customary laws are applied and practiced for centuries in the community to which they belong, then the community panchayat can only exercise his duties and solve the problem among the parties or the parties can seek divorce under the community panchayat.

The family court act preamble states that it provides jurisdiction over all religions be it scheduled tribes or any other under section 7(1)(a), hence it is secular law. Secular law does not prioritize religion over its people, in India secular law in its 42nd amendment of the constitution of India clearly states the meaning of secular law and legal system without religion.

The court also committed an error in the jurisdiction. The Family Courts Act, 1984 was a dynamic enactment to resolve family-related debate through an imaginative and quicker gathering. It was expected that this mode will work in a fair way and will accomplish the most extreme victory in managing family debate. The main motive behind the family court act, 1984 is to settle disputes related to marriage with respect to any religion to which the party belongs and promote reunion.

"The Family court Act, 1984 may be a result of the battle between different NGOs and ladies affiliations across the nation. Family Courts were set up beneath Area 3 of this act having the objective to supply a fast settlement with lesser costs and customs, in cases related to marriage and family and to form an assertion between the parties for their speedier determination."

Customary laws of the Oraon community conflicted with the family court act, 1984 because the family court act is a secular law under section 7 jurisdiction from claused (a) to (g) and a codified law but because of the fact that it itself specifies that it is a secular law and law which does not seek religion first rather believe in its people so under section 7 of family court the jurisdiction of the said case will be pleaded and keeping in mind the traditional divorce of their community.

The family court act specifically under section 7 states the jurisdiction and also explains the points when one can be held liable under section 7 family court act,1984. Section 7 defined under the family court act, 1984 is as follows:

Can exercise the jurisdiction of any district court for the time being specified by the law.

Be deemed for the purpose of exercising those rights over the jurisdiction of any district court.

Issue:

• Whether the adjudicatory facts are different from jurisdictional facts?
• Whether the family court made an error by not holding the suit not maintainable because of the absence of codified law?
• Whether the jurisdiction lies with the court in pleading the appeal or not?

Facts
The suit was filed under section 7 of the family court act, 1984. The parties belonging to the Oraon community to which their marriage was performed on 27th April 2015 as per their customs and usage of their community. The appellant wanted a divorce on the ground of adultery. The learned judge also dismissed original suit no. 583 of 2017, on the ground of maintainability.

The family court referred to the book "The customary laws of the Munda and the Oraon" that no substantive codified laws are applicable to the parties as the Oraon community does not have substantive law. The family court clearly states that in the absence of substantive codified law, the Hindu marriage act. 1955, special marriage act, 1954, and divorce act, 1869 would not be applicable to the appellant for seeking a divorce.

Amicus curiae were appointed to assist the case afterward. They rendered that since the suit was dismissed earlier on the ground of maintainability so that area would not be touched in this appeal and since the case has come to divorce so instead of keeping in mind the merits of the case, the facts which they belong to the tribal community and they got married under their custom and usage by their community will be taken.

Judgment
Mr. Kumar Vaibhav and Shubhashis Rasik Soren were appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court. Amicus curiae refer to a person who is not from any side ( appellant and respondent) but rather acts as a friend to a court, who has a strong interest in the matter. As the inputs provided it was clearly stated that the Oraon community is governed by the tribal community and is governed by their custom laws. There are hierarchies of panchayats in the Oraon community to which the parties if necessary approach the panchayats for divorce or dissolution of marriage.

The administrative control worked out by the Parliament can be followed by Article-246(2) of the Structure of India. The field of enactment is referable to Entry-11-A beneath List-III of the Seventh Plan and was embedded by the 42nd Revision Act, 1976 i.e. "Organization of equity, structure, and organization of all courts, but the Incomparable Court and the Tall Court".

Later after deciding and referring to various judgments made by the amicus curiae, it was held that the family court act, 1984 made an error in holding the jurisdiction by the appellant was not maintainable and there was no law which was available for the parties since they belong to the Oraon community which is a tribal community and no codified laws were applicable to the parties. The family court also made an error in seeking a divorce as the said parties were allowed to take as per their custom and usage by their community and not by the court of law.

At last, the court said that in the eyes of law, the Oraon community which is a tribal community is not applicable to take a divorce under any act rather the family court act, 1984 has to amend the proper issue under which they would be treated equally. Hence the court permits the parties to end the pleadings and to prove the custom usage in divorce. Therefore this matter will be taken fresh by the family court without the influence of the court.

Various Cases Were Referred By The Apex Court In Deciding The Case Of Baga Tirkey V. State Of Kerala
The perception of Ruler Steyn in the case of "R. Versus Secretary of State for Domestic Division" held that getting to equity could be an aspect of Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India. [see (2016) 8 SCC 509 para-31]. Hence, it is submitted that in this case all custom prohibits getting to family court and consigns an individual looking for divorce Therefore, they argue that if any custom prohibits them from appearing in the family court and the petitioner for divorce is transferred to the panchayat/community court, this is a violation of the right to a trial and a violation towards the said community.

The conclusion of the apex Court in the case of "Carona Ltd. Versus Parvathy Swaminathan & Children", detailed in (2007) 8 SCC 559, Expressed basically, the reality or actualities upon which the jurisdiction of a Court, a Tribunal, or a Specialist depends can be said to be a 'jurisdictional fact.

In the event that the jurisdictional fact exists, a Court, Tribunal, or Specialist has the purview to decide other issues. In case such reality does not exist, a Court, Tribunal, or Specialist cannot act. It is additionally well settled that a Court or a Tribunal cannot wrongly accept the presence of jurisdictional truth and continue to choose a matter.

In the case of "Subramani Versus M. Chadralekha", detailed in (2005) 9 SCC 407 in para-10:- "it is well set up by the long chain of authorities that predominance of standard separate within the community to which parties have a place, opposite to common law of divorce must be particularly argued and set up by the person propounding such custom.

The case of Shyni v/s. The George court held that a spouse can spare a near relative of her spouse or indeed a stranger on charges that the spouse had given over the property to them in a suit for recuperation of the property. This would not be out of the locale of the Family Courts. Hence this would not be out of the jurisdiction of family courts.

Review
The Family Court has authority over both civil and criminal cases, according to the Family Court Act of 1984. It can deal with any lawsuit and action pertaining to matrimonial concerns, the legal status of any individual, maintenance, and child custody or access to any minor. It has jurisdiction over the upkeep of the wife, kids, and parents in criminal proceedings. The point of family courts was to settle the debate emerging from a marriage. But these goals were not satisfied completely due to different reasons.

These are a few recommendations that ought to be embraced by a family court to guarantee the appropriate working of the court and the accomplishment of the objective of the Act.- Separated from making family courts, there ought to be an endeavor to secure gender-based uniformity and expel inclinations of courts in women-related cases, There ought to be given related to the arrangement of judges of family court i.e., a few additional capabilities related to family things ought to be there.

The method endorsed by the act ought to be disentangled so that it might be effortlessly caught on by a standard man. The point of family courts was to settle the debate emerging from a marriage with a conciliatory approach, But these targets were not satisfied completely due to different reasons.

The family court should always preside over any case of the aforementioned sort, excluding the district court, any other subordinate court, or any magistrate. In accordance with the act, any such proceeding that is currently active before another court or magistrate must be transferred right away to the family court. To put it another way, the FCA established a forum for the resolution of marriage disputes of the kinds listed in the FCA's interpretation of Section 7 that is open to everybody, including scheduled tribe members and people of all faiths.

In the present case of Baga Tirkey v. Pinki Linda, the family court act, 1984 should be applicable to the Oraon community under their custom usage and in the absence of substantive codified law. The main motive behind the family court act, 1984 is to settle disputes related to marriage with respect to any religion to which the party belongs and promote reunion. The Family court Act, 1984 may be a result of the battle between different NGOs and ladies affiliations across the nation.

The most objective was to supply speedier determination of debate in family things. Prior to all the cases related to family, matters were listened to in standard courts, which take a long time to judge. Family court gives an opportunity to settle cases even amicably and at least cases fetched. The point that the court has in intellect isn't accomplished, however.

The family courts still require fitting strategies for the smooth working of trial and their point ought to be that any layman can get the procedures of the case. In the event that a few dynamic revisions are made in this act, the point of making extraordinary courts will be satisfied.