Key Points: - The petition challenges an order rejecting I.A. under Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act, noting marriage not registered under the Act (!) (!) - Court observes that Section 15 prescribes conditions for registration but does not declare registration compulsory; Section 27 allows divorce petitions without requiring registration (!) (!) (!) - Family Court held registration not mandatory for filing for divorce; contention that registration could confer benefits under Section 18 if registered (!) - Petitioner argues that registration is directory, not mandatory, and failure to register affects multiplicity of proceedings; reliance on Calcutta High Court decision (Amitava Bhattacharya) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Court reiterates that there is no provision in the Act making divorce petition non-maintainable if marriage is not registered (!) - The court dismisses the writ, upholding the Family Court’s order and rejecting I.A. under Section 15 (!) (!)

What is the effect of Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act on registration of marriage and maintainability of divorce petitions where marriage is not registered?

What is the scope of Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act regarding divorce petitions without mandatory registration, and whether non-registration affects jurisdiction or maintainability?

How does the Karnataka High Court interpret the relationship between non-registration and the availability of remedies under the Special Marriage Act versus other Acts?