Rajasthan High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Mandatory Publication Of "Notice Of Intended Marriage" Under Special Marriage Act

The plea also sought to declare Sections 7 & 8 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 as directory in nature, so far as the same provide for invitation of objections upon notices published under Sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 & adjudication of the same by the District Marriage Officer.

It further sought consequent declarations under Section 16 of the Act and under Rules 8, 10 & 12 of the Rajasthan Special Marriage Rules, 1955.

Essentially, the grievance of the petitioners is to the effect that they gave a notice of intended marriage under Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act to the respondent No.3 – District Collector, Jodhpur, however, the said authority is insisting them for publication of notice under Section 6 of the Act of 1954.

Justice Vijay Bishnoi, observed,

"Issue notice. Issue notice of stay petition as well, returnable on 12.05.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioners is free to supply the copy of the writ petition to the learned counsel usually appearing for the respondents in the matter."

Interfaith Marriage Registration Can't Be Refused By Insisting On Conversion Approval: Allahabad HC Affirms Right To Choose Partners

Placing reliance on the decision in Safiya Sultana & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., the petitioners' counsel argued that the Allahabad High Court has already held that the requirement of publication of notice under Section 6 of the Act of 1954 is directory in nature and to be given effect only on request of the parties to the intended marriage and not otherwise.

Notably, the Allahabad High Court had observed,

"The Unlawful Conversion Act, 2021, per se, does not prohibit interfaith marriage. The Marriage Registrar/Officer, however, lacks the power to withhold the registration of marriage, merely for the reason that the parties have not obtained the necessary approval of conversion from the district authority. Such approval is a directory and not mandatory. If interpreted otherwise the Act would not satisfy the test of reasonableness and fairness, and would fail to pass the muster of Article 14 and Article 21,"

Adv. Pradeep Singh Khichi appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

Case Title: Lunavath Veeranna & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.