Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Not Illegal Only Because Either Spouse Did Not Live In The District Where Marriage Was Registered For 30 Days: Bombay HC
A marriage duly certified under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 cannot be deemed illegal or void just because either of the spouses did not comply with section 5 of the Act, which mandates one of them to live in the district, where they register their marriage, for 30 days, the Bombay High Court held on Friday (February 28).A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna said once...
A marriage duly certified under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 cannot be deemed illegal or void just because either of the spouses did not comply with section 5 of the Act, which mandates one of them to live in the district, where they register their marriage, for 30 days, the Bombay High Court held on Friday (February 28).
A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna said once a marriage certificate is issued by the Registrar of Marriages under the Special Marriage Act, it is conclusive evidence of the legality of the marriage until it is quashed by a court of law.
"In our clear opinion, any irregularity in one of the parties to the marriage not residing for a continuous period of 30 days, cannot in any manner result in the solemnity of the marriage between the parties as reflected in the marriage certificate and the marriage as registered by the Registrar of Marriages under the Special Marriage Act being extinguished. On such irregularity, the marriage cannot be rendered or labelled to be a void marriage," the judges held.
The judges pointed out that the reasons for categorising a marriage to be void and illegal are set out under section 24 of the Act.
"Once a Marriage Certificate was issued to the parties under the Special Marriage Act, it is conclusive evidence of the legality and solemnity of the marriage until it is set aside for any valid reason by an appropriate authority or by the Court of law. The law would not permit any person or authority to discard or not to give effect to such marriage certificate," the bench ruled.
The bench made the ruling while disposing of a petition filed by a woman, who challenged the legality of a communication by the German Embassy, which by an order passed on January 8, 2025 rejected her visa application. The Embassy in its order, said that the marriage dated November 23, 2023, solemnised between the petitioner Priyanka Bannerji and Rahul Verma cannot be held legal because they failed to comply with section 5 of Act since either of them did not live in the concerned district, where their marriage was registered, for continuous 30 days.
The judges, while considering the issue, noted that section 13 of the Act provides for “Certificate of marriage” which ordains that when the marriage has been solemnised, the Marriage Officer shall enter a certificate thereof in the form specified in the Fourth Schedule in a book, to be kept by him for that purpose and to be called the Marriage Certificate Book and such certificate shall be signed by the parties to the marriage and the three witnesses.
Sub-section (2) provides that on a certificate being entered in the Marriage Certificate Book by the Marriage Officer, the Certificate shall be 'deemed to be conclusive evidence' of the fact that a marriage under the Special Marriage Act has been solemnized and that all formalities respecting the signatures of witnesses have been complied, the bench noted.
"When such is the provision and the sanctity, the law would accord to a marriage certificate issued by the Registrar, which continues to be legal and valid, the petitioner cannot have any grievance. The marriage certificate dated November 23, 2023 issued to the petitioner and her spouse. Rahul Verma is legal and valid and fully recognised by the Indian law. There cannot be any other opinion," the bench emphasised.
With these observations, the bench disposed of the petition.
Appearance:
Advocates Pankaj Jain and Pradeep Purohit instructed by PD Jain & Co. appeared for Petitioners.
Assistant Government Pleader VR Raje represented the State.
Advocates Hrishikesh Nabar and Gargi Warunjikar represented the Private Respondents.
Case Title: Priyanka Bannerji vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 2656 of 2025)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 80
