Delhi High Court Refuses To Relax 30-Day Notice Period Under Special Marriage Act, Says Personal Hardship Can't Dilute Procedure

The Delhi High Court refused to relax 30-day notice period under the Special Marriage Act for a couple, observing that mere personal hardship or individual inconvenience, however genuine it may be cannot be a ground to dilute or bypass mandatory statutory compliance. The petitioners, argued that they wanted to solemnize their marriage under Special Marriage Act, and had submitted a notice of intended marriage before the Marriage Officer, Kalkaji on 11.05.2026 in terms of Section 5. In terms of the statutory scheme contemplated under Sections 6 and 7, the statutory waiting period of thirty days is yet to expire and the date fixed for solemnization of marriage has consequently been scheduled as 19.06.2026. It was stated that petitioner no.1 has secured employment abroad and is required to join before 10.06.2026. It was submitted that in view of the impending joining date and the consequent relocation abroad, the petitioners would suffer grave hardship if compelled to await expiry of the statutory waiting period prescribed under the Act particularly when there exists no legal impediment to solemnization of the marriage.Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the statutory scheme, as it presently stands, contemplates solemnization of marriage only upon expiry of thirty days from the date of submission and publication of notice under the provisions of the Act. The court referred to Section 16 which expressly postulates that a marriage under the said enactment may be solemnized only after the lapse of thirty days from the publication of notice contemplated under Section 6 thereof.The court said:"The statutory mechanism contemplated under the Act of 1954, including the waiting period prescribed therein, is not merely procedural in nature but forms part of the legislative framework consciously engrafted by the Parliament. Once the Statute itself contemplates solemnization 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 of 1954...Mere personal hardship or individual inconvenience, howsoever genuine, cannot furnish a ground to dilute or bypass mandatory statutory compliance. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex, “the law is hard, but it is the law”, stands attracted in such circumstances. In Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Land Acquisition Officer., the Supreme Court observed that a result flowing from a statutory provision can never be treated as an evil and the Court has no power to ignore a statutory mandate merely to relieve hardship arising from its operation"The court further said that while enacting a statutory framework, the legislature is presumed to be conscious of the practical implications and possible hardships that may arise in individual cases. Courts, the high court said, must remain circumspect in rewriting or diluting statutory requirements on considerations of individual exigencies.The high court further referred to Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma, where the Supreme Court had held that while interpreting a statutory provision, the Court can neither add nor subtract words from the Statute and cannot, under the guise of interpretation, rewrite the legislative framework enacted by the Parliament."The Court, thus, finds no justifiable ground to permit waiver or curtailment of the statutory period of thirty days prescribed under the Act of 1954. 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 court said. The petitioners had sought a direction to the authorities relax the 30-day notice period. It had further sought a direction to solemnize/ register the marriage of the Petitioners prior to June 10, preferably in the first week of June. The plea was dismissed. Case title: SYED FAYAZUDDIN AND ANR v/s GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANRCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 568W.P.(C) 7103/2026Click Here To Read/Download Order

Delhi High Court Refuses To Relax 30-Day Notice Period Under Special Marriage Act, Says Personal Hardship Can't Dilute Procedure

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Delhi High Court Refuses To Relax 30-Day Notice Period Under Special Marriage Act, Says Personal Hardship Can't Dilute Procedure

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers