Karnataka High Court

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

SMT. RATHNA P vs SRI. CHIKKAMANCHAIAH S M

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: April 17, 20263 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

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

Source reference: p. 2

Both parties belong to the "Meda" Scheduled Tribe

Source reference: p. 3

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

Source reference: p. 3

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

Source reference: p. 3

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

Source reference: p. 3-4

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

Source reference: p. 4-5
02

Issues

1. Whether a petition for divorce under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, is maintainable if the marriage was not originally solemnized or registered under the said Act

Source reference: p. 7

2. Whether registration of a marriage under Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act is a mandatory prerequisite for seeking matrimonial relief under Section 27 of the Act

Source reference: p. 8
03

Law Applied

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

Source reference: p. 6

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

Source reference: p. 8

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

Source reference: p. 9

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

Source reference: p. 5, 8
04

Reasoning

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

Source reference: para. 12, 14

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

Source reference: para. 12

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

Source reference: para. 9, 13

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

Source reference: para. 15
05

Holding

The Court held that a petition for divorce under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, is maintainable even if the marriage was not registered under Section 15 of the Act

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

Source reference: p. 11

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

Source reference: para. 12, 16
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SMT. RATHNA PvsSRI. CHIKKAMANCHAIAH S M

Karnataka High Court · April 17, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment