The Madras High Court helped a young couple by allowing a virtual marriage with the bride in India and the groom in the United States. The bride’s request for a marriage certificate was also granted by the court, which noted that the bride possessed a power of attorney that permitted her to sign the marriage certificate on behalf of both herself and the groom.

According to Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench, Section 12 of the Special Marriage Act of 1954 offers the couples the freedom to choose any method of marriage solemnization as long as it is accepted, acceptable, and does not go against public policy.

However, in this instance, the parties weren’t engaging in a proxy marriage. The bride and groom had travelled in from the United States to submit an application jointly under Section 5 of the Act. The groom’s father and mother objected after seeing the notice that had been issued. Later, the marriage officer concluded that the concerns were unjustified. The parties again physically addressed the respondent for solemnization after the required 30-day notice period. But for reasons that remain a mystery, the respondent officer chose not to assist in the marriage’s solemnization in his presence. Due to visa constraints, the groom had to return to the United States in the meantime. The court noted as a result:

“If the respondent had taken steps right then, the present situation would not have arisen at all. Just as an act of the court should not harm any part, the default committed by the authority ought not to result in prejudicial consequences.”

He also discussed an observation made recently by a division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V. Ramasubramanian where they orally observed that “the Special Marriage Act was enacted in 1954 whereas the technology of computer and internet was introduced much later. Law has to march along with technology. Where there is a difficulty, the letter of law cannot be so rigid that it makes it impossible for the parties to follow”.

The court also took note of a recent decision by the Kerala High Court, where Justice PB Suresh Kumar declared that legislation must adapt to the demands of a changing society and that a pragmatic reading of the Information Technology Act must be applied.

The court noted that the right to marriage was a fundamental human right and that Sections 12 and 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 should be interpreted in a way that upholds this right because the Division Bench of the Madras High Court had not issued a ruling to the contrary. Thus, the court approved the previous method of marriage solemnization.



The following disclaimer governs the use of this website (“Website”) and the services provided by the Law offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate & Associates in accordance with the laws of India. By accessing or using this Website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions stated in this disclaimer.

The information provided on this Website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice or relied upon as such. The content of this Website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Firm. Any reliance on the information provided on this Website is done at your own risk.

The Law Firm makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained on this Website.

The Law Firm disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this Website or for any actions taken in reliance on the information provided herein. The information contained in this website, should not be construed as an act of solicitation of work or advertisement in any manner.