THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION/S IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.06.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KANAKAPURA, IN M.C. NO.18/2024, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner, challenging the Order on I.A.No.I dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura, in M.C.No.18/2024, rejecting I.A.No.I filed by the respondent under Section 15 of Special Marriage Act.

2. Petitioner-wife before this Court is the respondent and Respondent-husband before this Court is the petitioner before the Family Court.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

3. The marriage between the petitioner-wife and respondent-husband was solemnized on 30.04.2006 at Samudaya Bhavan, Kabbalu, Kanakapura taluk, according to community and customary rites. The marriage was

never solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The parties cohabited as husband and wife and gave birth to a girl child Vinutha C @ Ishwarya, who is presently residing with the petitioner. Due to matrimonial differences, they are living separately since 18.02.2009. As both the parties belong to “Meda” scheduled tribe, they are excluded from the operation of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act and their marriage itself is not valid.

4. The respondent-husband had instituted M.C.No.46/2015 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce against the petitioner-wife, which was rejected for want of jurisdiction Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thereafter, husband had filed petition under Section 27(b) and 27(b) of Special Marriage Act, 1954, for dissolution of marriage between petitioner and respondent. I.A.No.I was filed in M.C.No.46/2015 by the respondent-husband praying to reject the petition as the marriage was not registered under the provisions of said Act.

5. It has been observed by the Family Court in Paragraph 15 that Section 15 of the Act only prescribes the conditions required for registration of marriage and do not declare that registration of marriage is compulsory or that petition for divorce under Section 27 of the Act is not maintainable unless the marriage is registered. The Family Court rejected I.A.No.I filed by the husband respondent before this Court. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner-wife is before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife submitted that earlier she had filed CRP No.724/2025 before this Court. This Court directed the petitioner to withdraw said petition and to file writ petition. It is submitted that the Family Court failed to appreciate that petitioner’s marriage being neither solemnized nor registered under the Special Marriage Act, falls outside the purview of the Act. It is submitted that the registration of marriage is only directory and not mandatory is erroneous. The interpretation adopted by the Court dilutes Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act.

7. It is further submitted by petitioner that continuation of M.C.No.18/2024 would amount to harassment of the respondent through vexatious litigation and would also result in multiplicity of proceedings. It is contended that the impugned order passed on I.A.No.I in M.C.No.18/2024 may be set aside.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decision of Calcutta High Court:

Amitava Bhattacharya Vs. Smt. Aparna Bhattacharya in 2009 SCC ONLINE 300 appellant therein had sought to declare the registered marriage null and void on certain grounds. The Hon'ble High Court of Culcutta, after coming to the conclusion that when the marriage took place, age of the respondent/wife was below the prescribed age of 21 years, declared that marr