The Karnataka High Court has held that couples need not register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to file or maintain a divorce petition. The Bench dismissed the wife’s writ petition challenging the lower court’s decision.
The High Court of Karnataka has ruled that the Special Marriage Act, 1954 does not require a marriage to be registered under the Act as a precondition for filing and maintaining a divorce petition.
Justice K. Manmadha Rao dismissed a writ petition filed by a wife challenging a decision of a lower court that allowed the divorce case brought by her husband under the Special Marriage Act to proceed.
The marriage between the petitioner-wife and respondent-husband was solemnized on April 30, 2006, at Kabbalu, Kanakapura taluk, in accordance with the parties’ community and customary rites. The couple has been living separately since February 18, 2009.
ALSO READ: Divorce Laws in India: All Legal Grounds Explained With Supreme Court Judgments
Both parties are from the “Meda” scheduled tribe.
Initially, the husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (M.C. No. 46/2015).
However, the petition was rejected on jurisdictional grounds because Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act bars its application to members of Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government specifically notifies otherwise.
Thereafter, the husband filed a fresh petition under Section 27(b) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (M.C. No. 18/2024), seeking dissolution on grounds of desertion and cruelty.
The wife then filed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. I) seeking rejection of the husband’s petition. She argued that since the marriage was neither solemnized under nor registered pursuant to the Special Marriage Act, the Family Court lacked jurisdiction.
The Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura rejected her application on June 26, 2025, prompting the present writ petition.
Counsel for the wife contended that because the marriage was performed according to customary rites and was not registered under the Special Marriage Act, it fell completely outside the Act’s scope.
It was further argued that the Family Court’s view treating registration as merely directory (not mandatory) was incorrect and diluted the requirements under Section 15. The petitioner also alleged that continuing the proceedings would amount to “harassment through vexatious litigation.”
In reply, the husband’s counsel submitted that the interlocutory application was aimed at delaying and harassing him. He noted that, due to his tribal status, he was unable to pursue divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore his only available remedy was under the Special Marriage Act.
The Court examined Sections 15 and 27 of the Special Marriage Act. Section 15 sets out the conditions for registering marriages celebrated in other forms under the Act.
The Court held that Section 15 does not make registration compulsory and does not say that a divorce petition under Section 27 cannot be maintained unless registration has occurred.
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 the effect of Sections 15 and 27, the Court reasoned that although registration confers certain advantages under Section 18, it is not a mandatory requirement for obtaining a decree of divorce.
Justice Rao further 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.”
With regard to Section 27, 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 wife’s reliance on the Calcutta High Court decision in Amitava Bhattacharya Vs. Smt. Aparna Bhattacharya (2009), explaining that the facts were distinguishable because that case related to annulment of an existing registration based on age requirements, rather than whether a divorce petition could be maintained without registration.
Finding no provision in the Special Marriage Act that makes a divorce petition unmaintainable due to lack of marriage registration, the High Court upheld the order of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, and dismissed the writ petition.