The High Court of Karnataka has clarified that the Special Marriage Act, 1954, does not require a marriage to be registered under the Act as a prerequisite for the maintainability of a divorce petition. Presiding over the matter, Justice K. Manmadha Rao dismissed a writ petition filed by a wife challenging a lower court’s decision to proceed with a divorce case initiated by her husband under the Special Marriage Act.
Background of the Case
The marriage between the petitioner-wife and respondent-husband was solemnized on April 30, 2006, at Kabbalu, Kanakapura taluk, according to community and customary rites. The parties have been living separately since February 18, 2009.
The couple belongs to the “Meda” scheduled tribe. Initially, the respondent-husband filed a petition for divorce (M.C. No. 46/2015) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, this petition was rejected for want of jurisdiction because Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act excludes members of Scheduled Tribes from its operation unless specifically notified by the Central Government.
Following this, the husband filed a fresh petition under Section 27(b) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (M.C. No. 18/2024), seeking dissolution of the marriage on grounds of desertion and cruelty. The wife filed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. I) seeking rejection of this petition, arguing that the marriage was neither solemnized nor registered under the Special Marriage Act, and therefore, the Family Court lacked jurisdiction. The Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, rejected her application on June 26, 2025, leading to the present writ petition.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioner-wife contended that since the marriage was performed according to customary rites and not registered under the Special Marriage Act, it falls entirely outside the purview of the Act. It was argued that the Family Court’s interpretation—that registration is directory rather than mandatory—was erroneous and diluted the requirements of Section 15 of the Act. The petitioner further claimed that continuing the proceedings would amount to “harassment through vexatious litigation.”
In response, counsel for the respondent-husband argued that the wife’s application was an attempt to “protract the proceedings and to harass him.” He highlighted that since he was barred from seeking relief under the Hindu Marriage Act due to his tribal status, his only available remedy for divorce was under the Special Marriage Act.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court examined the statutory provisions of the Special Marriage Act, specifically Sections 15 and 27. Section 15 outlines the conditions under which marriages celebrated in other forms may be registered under the Act.
The Court observed:
“Section 15 of the Act only prescribes the conditions required for registration of marriage and do not declare that registration of marriage is compulsory or that petition for divorce under Section 27 of the Act is not maintainable unless the marriage is registered.”
Comparing Sections 15 and 27, the Court noted that while registration provides certain benefits under Section 18, it is not a mandatory condition for seeking a decree of divorce. Justice Rao remarked:
“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.”
Regarding Section 27 of the Act, which deals with divorce, the Court clarified:
“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.”
The Court also addressed the petitioner’s reliance on the Calcutta High Court decision in Amitava Bhattacharya Vs. Smt. Aparna Bhattacharya (2009), noting that the facts were distinguishable as that case involved the annulment of an existing registration based on age requirements, rather than the maintainability of a divorce petition without registration.
Decision
The High Court held that there is no specific provision in the Special Marriage Act that renders a divorce petition unmaintainable in the absence of marriage registration.
Consequently, the Court upheld the order of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, and dismissed the writ petition.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 33261 of 2025 (GM-FC)
Bench: Justice K. Manmadha Rao
Date: April 17, 2026
