Introduction:

In Priyanka Bannerji vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 2656 of 2025), the Bombay High Court ruled that a marriage duly registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, cannot be deemed illegal or void solely because one of the spouses did not fulfill the requirement under Section 5 of the Act, which mandates residing in the district where the marriage is registered for 30 days. The division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna held that once a marriage certificate is issued by the Registrar of Marriages, it serves as conclusive evidence of the legality of the marriage unless set aside by a court. The ruling came in response to a petition filed by Priyanka Bannerji, whose visa application was rejected by the German Embassy on the ground that her marriage with Rahul Verma, solemnized on November 23, 2023, was not legally valid due to non-compliance with Section 5. The court found the Embassy’s stance untenable, reiterating that only grounds specified under Section 24 of the Act can render a marriage void, and non-compliance with the residency requirement does not fall within these grounds.

Arguments Presented by Both Sides:

The petitioner, Priyanka Bannerji, represented by Advocates Pankaj Jain and Pradeep Purohit, contended that her marriage with Rahul Verma was legally registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and that the issuance of a marriage certificate by the Marriage Registrar provided conclusive proof of its validity under Section 13 of the Act. She argued that non-fulfillment of the 30-day residency requirement under Section 5 could, at most, be an irregularity but could not be a ground for declaring the marriage void. The petitioner challenged the German Embassy’s order, dated January 8, 2025, which rejected her visa application by asserting that her marriage was not legally valid due to non-compliance with the residency clause. Her counsel stressed that the marriage certificate was issued following due process, with all formalities completed, including the signatures of witnesses, as per the Fourth Schedule of the Act. Since the law explicitly recognizes a registered marriage as valid until annulled by a competent court, the Embassy had no jurisdiction to question its legality. Furthermore, the petitioner cited previous judicial precedents that upheld the binding nature of official marriage certificates, arguing that the Embassy’s refusal to recognize the marriage violated her fundamental rights and principles of international comity. The State, represented by Assistant Government Pleader VR Raje, and the private respondents, represented by Advocates Hrishikesh Nabar and Gargi Warunjikar, contended that compliance with Section 5 was an essential prerequisite for registering a marriage under the Special Marriage Act. They argued that the requirement for one of the spouses to reside in the concerned district for 30 days was included in the law to prevent fraudulent or hasty marriages. The respondents maintained that failure to comply with this statutory requirement rendered the marriage questionable. However, they acknowledged that no proceedings had been initiated to annul the marriage under Section 24 of the Act. The German Embassy, though not a party to the case, had taken the position that the marriage certificate alone was not sufficient proof of legality due to the procedural lapse, thereby justifying its decision to deny the visa application.

Judgement:

The court, after considering all submissions, ruled in favor of the petitioner. It emphasized that the Special Marriage Act provides specific grounds under Section 24 for declaring a marriage void, and non-compliance with Section 5 is not one of them. The bench observed that once a marriage certificate is issued, it holds legal sanctity and serves as conclusive evidence of a valid marriage under Section 13(2) of the Act. The judgment highlighted that procedural lapses cannot override substantive rights, and an administrative body like the German Embassy has no authority to invalidate a legally recognized marriage. The bench further elaborated that the purpose of the 30-day residency requirement is administrative rather than substantive. While it facilitates verification of the parties’ intent to marry, it does not determine the legitimacy of the marriage itself. The judges reasoned that accepting the respondents’ arguments would lead to absurd consequences, where every minor procedural deviation could threaten the validity of a registered marriage. The court ruled that the Embassy’s decision to reject the petitioner’s visa application was arbitrary and based on a flawed understanding of Indian law. It reaffirmed that no authority, apart from a court of law, can declare a marriage void once it is duly registered under the Special Marriage Act. The bench emphasized that the legal presumption in favor of the validity of registered marriages must be respected, and administrative bodies must not overreach their jurisdiction. Consequently, the court quashed the German Embassy’s order rejecting the petitioner’s visa application and directed that her marriage be treated as legally valid for all purposes.