Marriage Registration and Mutual Divorce

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

The division bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar in the case of X v. Y (2025) held that mere registration of marriage between two individuals cannot determine matrimonial harmony or their intention to cohabit together, and allowed mutual divorce before completion of one year from the date of marriage. 

What was the Background of X v. Y (2025) Case? 

• The wife filed a petition challenging a family court order that rejected her application seeking leave to present a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent prior to expiry of one year from the date of marriage. 
• The parties never cohabited even for a single day after the marriage. 
• The marriage was never consummated between the parties. 
• Immediately after the marriage ceremony, both parties continued to reside separately at their respective parental homes. 
• The joint petition for divorce by mutual consent was presented within seven months of the marriage. 
• The Family Court declined to grant leave under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). 
• The Family Court held that the parties failed to establish a case of "exceptional hardship" warranting relaxation of the statutory bar. 
• The Family Court also held that the parties had not made sufficient or sincere efforts to preserve and save the marriage. 
• The Family Court observed that the subsequent registration of the marriage shortly after its solemnization militated against and diluted their claim of exceptional hardship. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court observed that it was an admitted fact that the parties never cohabited, the marriage was never consummated, and they had lived separately since the very inception of the marriage. 
• The Court emphasized that registration of marriage is merely a statutory mandate, and by itself, cannot be determinative of matrimonial harmony, intention to cohabit, or the viability of the marital relationship. 
• The Court held that the facts strike at the very foundation of a subsisting matrimonial relationship. 
• The Court stated that "insisting upon continuation of a marriage which exists only in law, and not in substance, would amount to compelling the parties to endure a relationship devoid of any matrimonial foundation, thereby causing avoidable hardship rather than advancing the object of the statute." 
• The Court held that the case squarely fell within the exception carved out under Section 14 of the HMA. 
• The Court set aside the impugned order of the Family Court. 
• The Court allowed the couple's application and granted them leave to present their joint petition for divorce by mutual consent. 
• The Court remanded the matter to the Family Court concerned to proceed with the petition under Section 13-B HMA in accordance with law, expeditiously. 

What are the Provisions Regarding Registration of Marriage? 

Hindu Law: 

• Section 8(1) of HMA enables the State Governments to make rules for the purpose of registration of marriage. 
• Section 8(2) mentions that regardless of what is stated in sub-section (1), the State Government can, if it deems necessary or appropriate, mandate the submission of the details mentioned in sub-section (1) within the entire state or specific regions, either universally or for specific cases.  
• In instances where such directives are issued, anyone who violates any such regulation established in this regard may face a fine of up to twenty-five rupees. 

Muslim Law: 

• Registration of marriage in Muslims is compulsory and mandatory, as a Muslim marriage is treated as a civil contract.  
• Every marriage contracted between Muslims after the commencement of this Act, shall be registered as hereinafter provided, within thirty days from the conclusion of the Nikah Ceremony. 
• Nikah Nama is a type of legal document in Muslim marriages which contains the essential conditions/details of the marriage.

Christan Law: 

• Sections 27-37 form Part IV of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, specifically addressing the registration process for marriages conducted under this Act among Indian Christians.  
• Marriages must adhere to the prescribed regulations, and they are typically officiated by clergymen affiliated with the Church of England.  

What is the Consequence of Non- Registration of Marriage? 

• The consequences of non-registration of marriage in India can vary depending on the context and legal requirements. Here are some general implications: 
  • Legal Recognition: While registration of marriage is not mandatory for its validity in most cases, it serves as conclusive evidence of the marriage having taken place. Without a registered marriage certificate, proving the existence of the marriage may be challenging, especially in legal proceedings. 
  • Rights and Benefits: A registered marriage certificate is often required for availing various rights and benefits provided by the government, such as inheritance rights, spousal benefits, and social security schemes. Non-registration may therefore result in the denial of these entitlements. 
  • Legal Proceedings: In case of disputes related to marital status, property rights, or divorce, a registered marriage certificate can simplify legal proceedings by providing clear documentation of the marriage. Non-registration may complicate such matters and prolong legal processes. 
  • Visa and Immigration: In certain cases, a registered marriage certificate may be required for visa applications and immigration purposes, especially for spouses intending to join their partners in another country. Non-registration could therefore hinder such processes. 

What are the Landmark Cases for Registration of Marriage? 

• Seema v. Ashwani Kumar (2007): 
  • In this case, the Supreme Court noted that under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, registration of marriages is left to the discretion of the parties, they can either solemnize the marriage before the Sub-Registrar or register it after performing the marriage ceremony according to customary beliefs.
• Abdul Kadir v. Salima and Anr.(1886): 
  • Justice Mahmood observed the nature of Muslim marriage as purely a civil contract rather than a sacrament.