While observing that Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act only prescribes the conditions required for registration of the marriage, the Karnataka High Court has held that there are no specific provisions in the Act which contemplate that a petition for a decree of divorce is not maintainable unless the marriage is registered under the Act.

The High Court was considering a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner-wife under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the Order passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, rejecting the application filed by the respondent husband under Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act.

The Single Bench of Justice K. Manmadha Rao stated, “Hence, it is held that there is no specific provisions in the Special Marriage Act 1954, which contemplates that petition for decree of divorce is not maintainable unless marriage is registered under the Act.”

“Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act only prescribes the conditions required for registration of the marriage and do not declare that registration of the marriage is compulsory or that petition for divorce under Section 27 of the Act is not maintainable unless the marriage is registered”, it added.

Advocate Nataraj Baba K represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Ravisha M G. represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The marriage between the petitioner-wife and respondent-husband was solemnized in 2006 according to community and customary rites. The marriage was never solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The parties cohabited as husband and wife and gave birth to a girl child, who has been residing with the petitioner. Due to matrimonial differences, they have been living separately since 2009. As both parties belong to the “Meda” scheduled tribe, they are excluded from the operation of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and their marriage itself was not valid. The respondent-husband had instituted a case under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce against the petitioner-wife, which was rejected for want of jurisdiction under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Thereafter, a petition was filed under Section 27(b) and 27(b) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. An interim application was filed by the respondent-husband, praying to reject the petition as the marriage was not registered under the provisions of said Act. Observing that Section 15 only prescribes the conditions required for registration of marriage and does not declare that registration of marriage is compulsory or that a petition for divorce under Section 27 of the Act is not maintainable unless the marriage is registered, the Family Court rejected the application filed by the husband respondent. The petitioner-wife thus approached the High Court on the ground that the order passed by the Family Court on the interim application was erroneous.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the parties had not registered their marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. “However, Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act do not contemplate requirement of registration of the marriage under the Act to maintain an application to seek the decree of divorce. Respondent is seeking decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. Section 15 of the Act deals with registration of marriage”, it stated while also adding, “Under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, registration of marriage is not mandatory but if the marriage is registered, Section 18 of the Act gives certain benefits. Except the same, there is no requirement of compulsory registration of marriage.”

The Bench made it clear that Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act does not contemplate the requirement of registration of the marriage under the Act to maintain an application to seek the decree of divorce.

Thus, dismissing the Petition, the Bench upheld the order rejecting the interim application filed by the respondent under Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act.

Cause Title: A v. B (Case No.: WP No. 33261 of 2025)

Click here to read/download Order


Karnataka High CourtJustice K Manmadha Rao

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.