New Delhi, Jun 16 The Delhi High Court has rejected a couple's petition seeking relaxation in the 30-day notice period for solemnisation of their marriage under the Special Marriage Act.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled that once the law has contemplated solemnisation of marriage only after the expiry of a 30-day period, the court cannot direct the authorities to act to the contrary.
In the present case, the petitioners had submitted a notice of their intended marriage before the Marriage Officer, Kalkaji, on May 11 under the Special Marriage Act, and the date of marriage was consequently scheduled for June 19, after the expiry of the statutory waiting period.
The couple, however, submitted in the High Court that since the groom secured employment abroad and was required to join before June 10, the waiting period should be waived for them.
They urged the court to permit them to marry in the first week of June, otherwise they would suffer great hardship.
In the judgment dated May 21, the court observed that mere personal hardship or individual inconvenience, no matter how genuine, cannot be grounds to dilute or bypass mandatory statutory compliance.
It stated that Section 16 of the Act expressly postulates that a marriage can only be solemnised after the lapse of thirty days from the publication of notice, and this waiting period is not merely procedural but forms part of a legislative framework consciously engrafted by the Parliament.
The order further said that it is presumed that the legislature was conscious of the practical implications and possible hardships that may arise in individual cases, and courts should not rewrite or dilute statutory requirements based on individual exigencies.
"Once the Statute itself contemplates solemnisation of marriage only after expiry of the prescribed period, this court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, cannot direct the authorities to act contrary thereto, particularly when deviation from the statutory mandate itself entails penal consequences under the Act," the court said.
"The court, thus, finds no justifiable ground to permit waiver or curtailment of the statutory period of thirty days prescribed under the Act. The relief sought by the petitioners, if granted, would amount to directing the statutory authorities to act contrary to the express legislative mandate contemplated under the said enactment.
"The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed," the court ruled.
