Pregnant Sri Lankan woman given 60 days to solemnise a valid marriage; deportation barred during that period

The petitioner, a Sri Lankan national, entered India on an e-Tourist Visa valid from 14 May to 13 June 2026.

She said that she and J. Arun Kumar, an Indian citizen, had undergone a marriage ceremony on 4 June 2026 and sought a direction requiring the Sub-Registrar to process registration under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, without insisting on a valid visa or police clearance; she also sought consideration of her visa-extension or regularisation application

The State disputed that the ceremony qualified for registration and noted that the petitioner had described it as a Christian marriage, without records showing conversion to Christianity.

At the previous listing, the Court directed a government medical officer to examine the petitioner and the FRRO to keep deportation proposals in abeyance; the medical report confirmed her pregnancy, with an expected delivery date of 2 March 2027.

1. Whether the ceremony performed by the petitioner and Arun Kumar could be treated as a marriage eligible for registration under Sections 15 and 16 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, so as to warrant a direction to the Sub-Registrar

2. Whether the petitioner should be protected from deportation and permitted to remain in India while the parties regularised their relationship through a valid marriage

Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 permits registration of a marriage celebrated in another form only where the statutory conditions are met, including that a marriage ceremony was performed and the parties thereafter lived together as spouses; Section 16 prescribes notice, a 30-day period for objections, and entry of the marriage certificate if the Section 15 conditions are satisfied.

The Court identified the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 as possible statutory forms through which the parties could solemnise a valid marriage.

The Court held that the ceremony on 4 June 2026 did not, strictly speaking, correspond to a recognised form of marriage ceremony and therefore did not establish the basis for the requested registration under Section 15.

It also noted that the petitioner had overstayed her Tourist Visa, while the confirmed pregnancy and her circumstances made immediate disruption of the relationship inappropriate.

Rather than direct registration or decide the visa application, the Court gave the parties 60 days to solemnise a valid marriage under an applicable statute and directed that the petitioner not be deported during that period.

It allowed the parties 60 days from the order to solemnise a valid statutory marriage; the petitioner was not to be deported during that period and, if the marriage was solemnised and registered within it, she could continue to remain in India subject to applicable law.

The Medical Officer was directed to provide necessary medical assistance as required; there was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.