The Kerala High Court has examined the scope and application of Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which relates to the registration of marriages that have been celebrated in some other form (i.e. religious or customary marriages) rather than under the Special Marriage Act itself. Under Section 15, a marriage that was performed outside the framework of the SMA may nevertheless be registered if certain conditions are satisfied. These conditions include that a marriage ceremony was performed and the parties have lived together as husband and wife since; that neither party has more than one spouse living at the time of registration; that neither party is an idiot or lunatic; that both parties have attained the age of twenty-one years at the time of registration; that they are not within prohibited degrees of relationship (subject in some cases to exceptions), and that they have been residing in the district of the Marriage Officer for at least thirty days immediately preceding the date on which the application is made.
One key issue the Court considered is whether the residence requirement in clause (f) of Section 15 is mandatory or directory, i.e. whether failure to satisfy the thirty-day residence condition would automatically invalidate the registration application. The petitioners conceded that they must fulfill all requirements under clauses (a) to (e) and challenged whether clause (f) must always be strictly enforced. The Court reviewed prior views, including that of a single judge (in Giby George) which held that clause (f) is directory and that the Marriage Officer may accept applications even without strict compliance in suitable cases, and other decisions which treated the residence requirement as more than a mere formality.
In resolving this dispute, the Court considered the interplay between Section 15 and Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act. Section 5 requires that at least one of the parties to the intended marriage should have resided in the jurisdiction of the Marriage Officer for thirty days before notice is issued, and then the notice period must elapse before solemnization. The Court drew attention to precedent that treats the residence requirement under Section 5 as mandatory, particularly because it is a condition for giving notice and proceeding with the special marriage process. The Court observed that while the consequences of noncompliance with clause (f) of Section 15 may be less severe than noncompliance with Section 5 in solemnization, the statute’s framework suggests that Section 15 (including clause (f)) is not wholly directory.
Further, the Court referred to procedural rules under the Kerala Special Marriage Rules, 1958, which prescribe that an application under Section 15 for registration must be in Form III, that the application may be presented in person or by registered post, and that on receipt of the application, the Marriage Officer must give public notice (under Rule 6(d)) in a prescribed form. The notification requirement is linked to the possibility of objections. After considering these statutory and procedural provisions, the Court held that Section 15’s safeguards must be given significance, and that the residence requirement in clause (f) cannot always be waived without proper justification.
On the question of whether the application for registration must be strictly in Form III and whether the date of celebration can be altered or omitted, the Court recognized that the prescribed format must be followed, and the declaration in the application must affirm fulfillment of the statutory conditions. The Court observed that a marriage officer acting under Section 15 must ensure compliance with the statutory terms and cannot disregard them lightly. Where objections are received or where prima facie there is a conflict with statutory requirements, the officer must conduct inquiries before proceeding to register.
In sum, the Kerala High Court has affirmed that Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act provides a route for legal registration of marriages celebrated outside the Act, but such registration is contingent on compliance with detailed conditions, including residence. The Court made clear that while courts have some flexibility in interpreting these provisions, the statutory safeguards and procedural formalities cannot be ignored, and the residence requirement in clause (f) holds substantive importance in many cases.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.