Delhi High Court upholds Special Marriage Act 30-day notice requirement, refusing relief despite couple’s hardship and urgent marriage request.

The Delhi High Court has refused to relax the mandatory waiting period under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, ruling that courts exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot direct statutory authorities to act against an express legislative requirement. The Court held that the Special Marriage Act 30-day notice period is a statutory obligation and cannot be bypassed due to personal hardship or individual circumstances.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that genuine inconvenience cannot become a ground to dilute mandatory legal requirements. The Court reiterated that when a statute prescribes a specific method for performing an act, it must be followed in that manner alone.

The petitioners had approached the High Court seeking directions to the Marriage Officer at Kalkaji to solemnize their marriage before 10 June 2026. They had submitted a notice of intended marriage on 11 May 2026 under Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act. However, the statutory thirty-day period under Sections 6 and 7 had not expired, with the marriage scheduled for 19 June 2026.

The petitioners argued that petitioner No. 1 had secured employment abroad and was required to join before 10 June 2026. They claimed that delaying the marriage until completion of the statutory period would cause serious hardship, particularly when no legal objection existed against the marriage.

Why did the court reject the plea despite the hardship faced by the couple?

The petitioners relied on earlier judgments, including the Delhi High Court decision in Pranav Kumar Mishra v. Government of NCT of Delhi and the Allahabad High Court ruling in Safiya Sultana v. State of Uttar Pradesh. They argued that these decisions supported relaxation of certain procedural requirements under the Special Marriage Act.

However, Justice Kaurav held that both judgments dealt with different issues and did not concern the waiver of the thirty-day waiting period. The Court noted that the statutory framework specifically requires marriage solemnization only after the expiry of thirty days following publication of notice.

The High Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to compel authorities to violate statutory provisions. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court stated that no mandamus can be issued directing government authorities to act contrary to law.

The Court observed that the waiting period reflects a conscious legislative decision and cannot be removed through judicial intervention. Citing the principle dura lex sed lex, meaning the law is strict but remains the law, Justice Kaurav held that courts cannot ignore statutory provisions merely to address individual difficulties.

The Court further stated that interpretation cannot be used to rewrite legislation or add exceptions that Parliament has not provided. Accordingly, the writ petition filed in Syed Fayazuddin & Anr. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. was dismissed.

Thus, Business Fortune is of the view that statutory safeguards must prevail over individual hardships when interpreting marriage laws.

FAQs

What is the Special Marriage Act 30-day waiting period?

It is the mandatory period between publication of marriage notice and solemnization under the Act.

Did the Delhi High Court allow exemption from the waiting period?

No, the Court refused to permit relaxation of the statutory requirement.

Why did the couple request early marriage solemnization?

They cited an overseas employment deadline faced by one petitioner.

Can Article 226 powers override statutory provisions?

The Court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass clear legal mandates.

Which judge delivered the judgment?

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav delivered the decision on 21 May 2026.