The Delhi High Court has declined to shorten the mandatory 30-day notice period prescribed under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, holding that courts cannot direct authorities to act contrary to statutory requirements merely because of personal hardship. The ruling came in a petition filed by a couple seeking urgent solemnization of their marriage before the expiry of the waiting period.
Background of the Case
The petitioners had submitted a notice of intended marriage before the Marriage Officer at Kalkaji on May 11, 2026, under the Special Marriage Act. As required by law, a 30-day waiting period applied, and the marriage was scheduled for solemnization on June 19, 2026.
The couple approached the High Court seeking relaxation of this period. They argued that the first petitioner had secured employment abroad and was required to join before June 10, 2026. According to them, waiting for the statutory period to expire would cause significant hardship because the petitioner would have to relocate overseas.
To support their plea, the petitioners relied on earlier decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Allahabad High Court concerning procedures under the Special Marriage Act.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the judgments cited by the petitioners dealt with different legal issues, including publication of marriage notices, privacy concerns, and personal liberty. The Court noted that none of those decisions addressed the question of waiving or reducing the statutory waiting period prescribed under the Special Marriage Act.
The Court emphasized that the Act specifically requires marriage solemnization only after the prescribed period has elapsed. Referring to settled legal principles, the bench stated that when a statute lays down a particular procedure, authorities and courts are bound to follow it.
The Court observed,
“Where a Statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, the same has to be done in that manner alone or not at all.”
The bench further stressed that personal inconvenience, however genuine, cannot justify bypassing mandatory legal requirements. It noted that courts cannot rewrite legislation or dilute statutory provisions on equitable considerations.
Finding no legal basis to curtail the waiting period, the Delhi High Court held that granting the relief sought would effectively require statutory authorities to act contrary to the Special Marriage Act.
“The relief sought by the petitioners, if granted, would amount to directing the statutory authorities to act contrary to the express legislative mandate,” the Court observed.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were also disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Syed Fayazuddin and Another v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Another
Case Number: W.P.(C) 7103/2026
Judge: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Decision Date: May 21, 2026
