SMT. RATHNA P vs SRI. CHIKKAMANCHAIAH S M

- 1 -
WP No. 33261 of 2025


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF APRIL, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO.33261 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. RATHNA P
W/O SRI. CHIKKAMANCHAIAH,
D/O PUTTASWAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O HOSAKABBALU VILLAGE,
SATHANURU HOBALI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT – 562 116.
…PETITIONER







(BY SRI. NATARAJ BABA K.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. CHIKKAMANCHAIAH S.M.,
S/O MANCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O SAMBEGOWDANADODDI,
SATHANURU HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT – 560 078.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by
VIJAYALAKSHMI
B N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA






(BY SRI. RAVISHA M G.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER
OR DIRECTION/S IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI SETTING-
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.06.2025 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA,
IN M.C. NO.18/2024, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

- 2 -
WP No. 33261 of 2025


THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 16.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, by the petitioner, challenging the Order
on I.A.No.I dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Court of Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, in M.C.No.18/2024,
rejecting I.A.No.I filed by the respondent under Section 15 of
Special Marriage Act.

2. Petitioner-wife before this Court is the respondent
and Respondent-husband before this Court is the
petitioner before the Family Court.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

3. The marriage between the petitioner-wife and
respondent-husband was solemnized on 30.04.2006 at
Samudaya Bhavan, Kabbalu, Kanakapura taluk, according
to community and customary rites. The marriage was

- 3 -
WP No. 33261 of 2025


never solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
The parties cohabited as husband and wife and gave birth
to a girl child Vinutha C @ Ishwarya, who is presently
residing with the petitioner. Due to matrimonial
differences, they are living separately since 18.02.2009.
As both the parties belong to “Meda” scheduled tribe, they
are excluded from the operation of Section 2(2) of the
Hindu Marriage Act and their marriage itself is not valid.

4. The respondent-husband had instituted
M.C.No.46/2015 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, seeking divorce against the petitioner-wife, which was
rejected for want of jurisdiction Section 2(2) of the Hindu
Marriage Act. Thereafter, husband had filed petition under
Section 27(b) and 27(b) of Special Marriage Act, 1954, for
dissolution of marriage between petitioner and
respondent. I.A.No.I was filed in M.C.No.46/2015 by the
respondent-husband praying to reject the petition as the
marriage was not registered under the provisions of said
Act.

- 4 -
WP No. 33261 of 2025


5. It has been observed by the Family Court in
Paragraph 15 that 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. The
Family Court rejected I.A.No.I filed by the husband-
respondent before this Court. Aggrieved by the same,
petitioner-wife is before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife submitted
that earlier she had filed CRP No.724/2025 before this
Court. This Court directed the petitioner to withdraw said
petition and to file writ petition. It is submitted that the
Family Court failed to appreciate that petitioner’s marriage
being neither solemnized nor registered under the Special
Marriage Act, falls outside the purview of the Act. It is
submitted that the registration of marriage is only
directory and not mandatory is erroneous. The
interpretation adopted by the Court dilutes Section 15 of
the Special Marriage Act.

- 5 -
WP No. 33261 of 2025



7. It is further submitted by petitioner that
continuation of M.C.No.18/2024 would amount to
harassment of the respondent through vexatious litigation
and would also result in multiplicity of proceedings. It is
contended that the impugned order passed on I.A.No.I in
M.C.No.18/2024 may be set aside.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the following decision of Calcutta High Court:
Amitava Bhattacharya Vs. Smt. Aparna
Bhattacharya in 2009 SCC ONLINE 300 appellant
therein had sought to declare the registered marriage null
and void on certain grounds. The Hon'ble High Court of
Culcutta, after coming to the conclusion that when the
marriage took place, age of the respondent/wife was
below the prescribed age of 21 years, declared that
marriage itself could not have been registered, ultimately
under Section 24(2) of the Act declared that purported
registration of the marriage was of no effect.

- 6 -
WP No. 33261 of 2025


9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondent-husband that with an intention to protract the
proceedings and to harass him, the petitioner has filed the
application I.A.No.I. It is further contended that the
marriage is not registered under the provisions of Special
Marriage Act. The petition M.C.No.46/2015 filed under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the husband,
seeking divorce was rejected for want of jurisdiction under
Section 2(2) of Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, as the
petitioner is restricted to get his remedy of divorce under
the Hindu Law, he is having remedy only under Special
Marriage Act and contended that the order passed by the
Family Court on I.A.No.I is erroneous.
10. Section 2(2) of Hindu Marriage Act reads as
under:
2(2).Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the
members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of
clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the
Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette,
otherwise directs.

- 7 -
WP No. 33261 of 2025


11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as respondent and perused the records.
12. As observed by this Court, admittedly, parties
herein have not registered their marriage under the
provision of 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. 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.

13. 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.
In so far as the judgment relied upon by the petitioner-

- 8 -
WP No. 33261 of 2025


husband in the case of Amitava Bhattacharya Vs. Smt.
Aparna Bhattacharya in 2009 SCC ONLINE 300
appellant therein had sought to declare the registered
marriage null and void on certain grounds. The Hon'ble
High Court of Culcutta, after coming to the conclusion that
when the marriage took place, age of the respondent/wife
was below the prescribed age of 21 years, declared that
marriage itself could not have been registered, ultimately
under Section 24(2) of the Act declared that purported
registration of the marriage was of no effect.

14. 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 would suffice to refer to Section
15 of the Special Marriage Act, which reads as under:
15. Registration of marriages celebrated in other
forms.― Any marriage celebrated, whether before or after
the commencement of this Act, other than a marriage
solemnized under the Special Marriage Act,1872(III of
1872) or under this Act may be registered under this
Chapter by a Marriage Officer in the territories to which

- 9 -
WP No. 33261 of 2025


this Act extends if the following conditions are fulfilled,
namely:―

(a) a ceremony of marriage has been performed between
the parties and they have .been living together as husband
and wife ever since;

(b) neither party has at the time of registration more than
one spouse living;

(c) neither party is an idiot or a lunatic at the time of
registration;

(d) the parties have completed the age of twenty-one
years at the time of registration;

(e) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited
relationship:

Provided that in the case of a marriage celebrated before
the commencement of this Act, this condition shall be
subject to any law, custom or usage having the force of
law governing each of them which permits of a marriage
between the two; and

(f) the parties have been residing within the district of the
Marriage Officer for a period of not less than thirty days
immediately preceding the date on which the application is
made to him for registration of the marriage.

15. However, as per 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. Section 27 of
the Act is extracted hereunder:
27. Divorce .―Subject to the provisions of this Act
and to the rules made thereunder, a petition for divorce
may be presented to the district court either by the
husband or the wife on the ground that the respondent―

- 10 -
WP No. 33261 of 2025


(a) has, after the solemnization of the marriage,
had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other
than his or her spouse; or
(b) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous
period of not less than two years immediately preceding
the presentation of the petition; or
(c) is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for
seven years or more for an offence as defined in the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
(d) has since the solemnization of the marriage
treated the petitioner with cruelty; or
(e) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has
been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental
disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the
petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the
respondent.
(f) has been suffering from venereal disease in a
communicable form; or
(g) XXX
(h) has not been heard of as being alive for a
period of seven years or more by those persons who
would naturally have heard of the respondent if the
respondent had been alive;
27A. Alternative relief in divorce
proceedings.― In any proceeding under this Act, on a
petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce,
except insofar as the petition is founded on the ground
mentioned in clause (h) of sub-section (1) of section 27,
the court may, if it considers it just so to do having regard
to the circumstances of the case, pass instead a decree
for judicial separation.

16. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon
hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the following
order is passed:

- 11 -
WP No. 33261 of 2025


The Writ Petition is dismissed.
The Order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Court of
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, in
M.C.No.18/2024, rejecting I.A.No.I filed by the respondent
under Section 15 of Special Marriage Act, is upheld.



SD/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE

bnv