Safiya Malik

The Bombay High Court has held that a marriage certificate issued under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, remains legally valid despite irregularities concerning the residence requirement of one of the parties. The court stated that an irregularity in fulfilling the continuous 30-day residency requirement under Section 5 of the Act does not render the marriage void.

The petitioner, Priyanka Tarapad Bannerji, approached the High Court after her visa application to Germany was rejected. The rejection was based on a letter dated January 8, 2025, received from the German Embassy, which stated that her marriage certificate, dated November 23, 2023, was not accepted due to non-compliance with the residency requirement under Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act. The embassy stated that such a certificate should not have been issued and questioned the validity of the marriage recorded in the document.

The petitioner requested appropriate directions, stating that she had been in India since October 2024 and that a corrected marriage certificate should be issued. Her counsel, Mr. Pankaj Jain and Mr. Pradeep Purohit, argued that non-compliance with the residency requirement does not affect the validity of the marriage itself. The Special Marriage Act does not prescribe that a marriage is void solely because of a failure to meet the residency condition. Once solemnized and registered, the marriage remains legally binding unless declared void under specific provisions of the Act.

The matter was heard by a division bench comprising Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna. The court stated, "We cannot accept the plea of the petitioner that the Marriage Certificate dated 23 November 2023 issued to the petitioner and her spouse-Mr. Rahul Verma is illegal and/or the marriage as solemnized between the parties on 23 November 2023 is a void marriage."

The court examined the provisions of Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act and observed, "Any irregularity in one of the parties to the marriage not residing for a continuous period of 30 days, cannot in any manner result in the solemnity of the marriage between the parties as reflected in the marriage certificate and the marriage as registered by the Registrar of Marriages under the Special Marriage Act being extinguished." The court stated that such an omission does not render the marriage void, as the categories of void marriages are specified under Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act.

The court further observed that "Once a Marriage Certificate was issued to the parties under the Special Marriage Act, it is conclusive evidence of the legality and solemnity of the marriage until it is set aside for any valid reason by an appropriate authority or by the Court of law." The judgment stated that the law does not permit any person or authority to disregard or refuse to recognize a valid marriage certificate issued under the Special Marriage Act.

The court examined the statutory provisions governing marriage registration and referred to Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act. It noted that "Section 13 provides for 'Certificate of Marriage' which ordains that when the marriage has been solemnized, the Marriage Officer shall enter a certificate thereof in the form specified in the Fourth Schedule in a book, to be kept by him for that purpose and to be called the Marriage Certificate Book and such certificate shall be signed by the parties to the marriage and the three witnesses." The judgment further stated that "on a certificate being entered in the Marriage Certificate Book by the Marriage Officer, the certificate shall be 'deemed to be conclusive evidence' of the fact that a marriage under the Special Marriage Act has been solemnized and that all formalities respecting the signatures of witnesses have been complied."

The court stated that when a marriage certificate is issued by the Registrar under the Special Marriage Act, it continues to be legal and valid. The judgment concluded, "The petitioner cannot have any grievance. The marriage certificate dated 23 November 2023 issued to the petitioner and her spouse Mr. Rahul Verma is legal and valid and fully recognized by the Indian law. There cannot be any other opinion."

Based on these findings, the court disposed of the petition. The court stated that procedural irregularities concerning the residency requirement do not invalidate a marriage certificate, and that no authority has the power to declare the marriage void solely on this basis.

Case Title: Priyanka Tarapad Bannerji & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:9612-DB

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2656 of 2025

Bench: Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna

[Read/Download order]