Radhakrishnan, J.

Question that is posed for consideration in all these cases is whether Section 15 (f) and Section 16 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, are mandatory provisions or directory provisions warranting a liberal interpretation taking into consideration of the hardship and inconveniences caused to the parties.

2. A learned Single Judge in Giby George v. Marriage Officer (2007 (2) KLT 270) interpreting section 15 (F) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, took the view that a ceremonial marriage between persons who were residing within the jurisdiction of special Marriage Officer can be registered even if such ceremonial marriage was solemnized within 30 days of the filing of an application for registration. Learned Judge then gave a direction to the Marriage Officer to receive the application and also to register the marriage without waiting for the period of 30 days. Further, the learned Judge also gave a direction to publish the factum of registration in the notice board with a rider that the registration is liable to be cancelled on any just and legal objections in accordance with law. The Marriage Officer was also directed to issue a certificate of marriage, within a specified time. Another learned Single Judge of this Court had also earlier adopted the same course in John Roji v. Marriage Officer (2004 (1) KLT 687.) Learned Judge taking note of the urgency expressed by the parties, directed the Marriage Officer to issue a certificate of marriage within a week from the date of production of the copy of the judgment and order that if it is found that the petitioners are not entitled for registration of marriage, it would be open to the Marriage Officer to revel the certificate issued. The learned Judge did not accept the stand of Marriage Officer that the certificate of marriage could be issued only after the statutory period is over and after registering the marriage. Another learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C). 10189/2004 however, rejected the prayer for registration of marriage before the expiry of one month period from the date of giving notice. Judgment of the learned Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.675/2004 expressing the opinion that whatever are the practical problems and difficulties of the parties, this Court cannot compel the Marriage Officer to act against the provisions of the Statute. But the impact of Sections 15 and 16 was not considered by the Bench. Another Division Bench of this Court in John Lukose v. District Registrar (2007 (1) KLT 247) while interpreting Section 16 of the Act, took the view that the marriage certificate can be issued in exceptional cases even before the expiry of 30 days. Bench however, granted the relief taking into consideration the special circumstances of that case.

3. Large number of cases are coming up before this Court seeking similar directions to the Marriage Officer to registration marriage under Special Marriage Act waiving the period mentioned in Section 15 (f) as well as under Section 16 of the Act pointing out various personal problems, hardship and inconvenience etc., faced by them. A learned Judge of this Court doubted the correctness of the view expressed in Giby Goerge’s case and the matter has been placed before us for an authoritative pronouncement on the various issues involved. We are called upon to examine in detail the scope of Section 15 and 16 and other allied provisions of the Act to give a quietus to the various issues on which conflicting view have been expressed.

4. Special marriage Act, 1954, is a Central Act enacted to provide a Special form of marriage in certain cases and for the registration of such and certain other marriages and for divorce. Chapter II of the Act deals with solemnization of special marriage under the Act and chapter III deals with the registration of marriages celebrated in other forms. Section 4 of the Act falling under Chapter II deals with the conditions to be fulfilled for solemnization