Registration of Marriage Under Special Marriage Act is Not a Pre-Condition for Maintaining a Divorce Petition

The petitioner (wife) and respondent (husband) married on 30.04.2006 according to community and customary rites

Both parties belong to the "Meda" Scheduled Tribe

After separating in 2009, the husband initially filed for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act (M.C. No. 46/2015), which was rejected for want of jurisdiction under Section 2(2) of that Act, which excludes Scheduled Tribes

The husband subsequently filed for divorce under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (M.C. No. 18/2024)

The wife filed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. I) seeking to reject the petition, contending that because the marriage was neither solemnized nor registered under the Special Marriage Act, the court had no jurisdiction

The Trial Court rejected the wife's application on 26.06.2025, a decision she challenged via this Writ Petition

Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which exempts Scheduled Tribes from its application unless notified by the Central Government

Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides a procedure for the registration of marriages celebrated in other forms but does not mandate such registration for all marriages

Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides the grounds for divorce "subject to the provisions of this Act" but does not explicitly state that registration is a condition precedent for filing a petition

The court also distinguished Amitava Bhattacharya v. Smt. Aparna Bhattacharya (2009), noting it dealt with the validity of a registration rather than the maintainability of a divorce petition in the absence of registration

The Court reasoned that Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act is directory rather than mandatory; it prescribes conditions for registration but does not declare that a marriage must be registered to invoke the Court's jurisdiction for divorce

While Section 18 of the Act provides specific benefits upon registration, the absence of registration does not strip a party of the right to seek a decree of divorce under Section 27

The Court observed that since the parties were excluded from the Hindu Marriage Act due to their Scheduled Tribe status under Section 2(2), the Special Marriage Act serves as the alternative legal remedy

The Court concluded that Section 27 of the Act does not contemplate a requirement of prior registration as a maintainability threshold for a divorce petition

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the Trial Court's order dated 26.06.2025

The rejection of I.A. No. I was deemed appropriate as the registration of marriage is not a mandatory prerequisite for seeking dissolution of marriage under the Act