Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal under S.39 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the petitioners before the lower court. Petitioners are husband and wife who married on 28-8-1982 and the marriage was solemnized at St. Thomas Marthoma Church, Koorthamala, Thiruvalla. The husband is a Marthomite and the wife is a Syrian Christian. 2. The petitioners alleged that the marriage was registered under S.15 of the Act. According to them, in view of the registration of the marriage under the Special Marriage Act, the marriage shall be deemed to be solemnized under the said Act as provided in S.18 and the provisions regarding divorce provided in the Act are applicable to them. The petitioners filed a joint petition under S.28 of the Act for divorce, stating that they have been living separately for more than an year, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. 3. The lower court heard the maintainability of the petition as a preliminary point. The lower court held that the marriage between the parties was solemnized according to the form prevalent in their community and not under the Act. By the registration of the marriage under the Act, it will only be deemed to be a marriage solemnized under the Act. In order to maintain an application under S.28 of the Act, the marriage must have been solemnized under the Act, and the registration of a marriage under the Act subsequent to the solemnization of marriage in accordance with the customary rites will not be sufficient. So holding the lower court dismissed the petition. In coming to the above conclusion, the lower court followed the decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Lagna v. Shyamal (AIR 1975 Calcutta 6). The appeal is filed by the petitioners against the above order. 4. Admittedly, the marriage between the petitioners was solemnized in accordance with the religious rites prevalent in their community. But subsequent to the marriage, it was registered under S.15 of the Act. The question to be decided is as to whether the provisions for effecting a divorce under the Act will apply to such marriages also. It is advantageous at this stage to read the relevant provisions of the Act. But subsequent to the marriage, it was registered under S.15 of the Act. The question to be decided is as to whether the provisions for effecting a divorce under the Act will apply to such marriages also. It is advantageous at this stage to read the relevant provisions of the Act. S.4 provides the conditions relating to solemnization of marriage and S.5 to 10 deal with the giving of notice of the intended marriage to the marriage officer and the inquiry into any objection by any person to the proposed marriage. Under S.11 before solemnization of marriage the parties and 3 witnesses shall in the presence of a marriage officer sign a declaration in a form as provided for in Schedule III which shall be counter-signed by the marriage officer. S.12 provides for the place and form of solemnization of the marriage. The solemnization may be done in any form which the parties may choose to adopt. But it shall not be complete and binding on the parties unless a declaration is made by both parties in the presence of the marriage officer and three witnesses in any language understood by them to the following effect: "I, (A), take thee (B), to be my lawful wife (or husband)". Under S.13, after solemnization of the marriage, the marriage officer shall enter a certificate as specified in 4th Schedule in the marriage certificate book which shall be conclusive evidence of a marriage under the Act. Chapter III (Sections 15 to 18) deals with registration of marriages celebrated otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act. S.15,16 and 18 are relevant to settle the controversy in this case and they are to the following effect: "15. Chapter III (Sections 15 to 18) deals with registration of marriages celebrated otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act. S.15,16 and 18 are relevant to settle the controversy in this case and they are to the following effect: "15. Registration of marriages celebrated in other forms.- Any marriage celebrated, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, other than a marriage solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1872 (3 of 1872) or under this Act, may be registered under this Chapter by a Marriage Officer in the territories to which this Act extends if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely - (a) a ceremony of marriage has been performed between the parties and they have been living together as husband and wife ever since; (b) neither party has at the time of registration more than one spouse living; (c) neither party is an idiot or a lunatic at the time of registration; (d) the parties have completed the age of twenty-one years at the time of registration; (e) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship: Provided that in the case of a marriage celebrated before the commencement of this Act, this condition shall be subject to any law, custom or usage having the force of law governing each of them which permits of a marriage between the two; and (f) the parties have been residing within the district of the Marriage Officer for a period of not less than thirty days immediately proceeding the date on which the application is made to him for registration of the marriage. 16. Procedure for registration.-Upon receipt of an application signed by both the parties to the marriage for the registration of their marriage under this Chapter, the Marriage Officer shall give public notice thereof in such manner as may be prescribed and after allowing a period of thirty days for objections and after hearing any objection received within that period, shall, if satisfied that all the conditions mentioned in S.15 are fulfilled, enter a certificate of the marriage in the Marriage Certificate Book in the form specified in the Fifth Schedule, and such certificate shall be signed by the parties to the marriage and by three witnesses." 18. Effect of registration of marriage under this Chapter.- Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of S.24, where a certificate of marriage has been finally entered in the Marriage Certificate Book under this Chapter, the marriage shall, as from the date of such entry, be deemed to be a marriage solemnized under this Act, and all children born after the date of the ceremony of marriage (whose names shall also be entered in the Marriage Certificate Book) shall in all respects be deemed to be and always to have been the legitimate children of their parents: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall be construed as conferring upon any such children any rights in or to the property of any person other than their parents in any case where, but for the passing of this Act, such children would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights by reason of their not being the legitimate children of their parents." 5. From the above Sections it is clear that when a certificate of marriage has been finally entered in the marriage certificate book under Chapter III, the marriage shall be deemed to have been solemnized under the Act from the date of such entry. S.18 provides that it shall be subject to the provisions contained in S.24(2). 6. Chapter VI of the Act deals with nullity of marriage and divorce. S.24 provides that certain marriages shall be null and void and may be declared to be so by a decree of nullity on any of the grounds mentioned therein. S.24(2) is significant and is as follows: "(2) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to any marriage deemed to be solemnized under this Act within the meaning of S.18, but the registration of any such marriage under Chapter III may be declared to be of no effect if the registration was in contravention of any of the conditions specified in clauses (a) to (e) of S.15: Provided that no such declaration shall be made in any case where an appeal has been preferred under S.17 and the decision of the district court has become final." S.25 deals with voidable marriages and the grounds on which a marriage may be annulled by a decree of nullity. S.27 mentions the grounds for divorce and S.28 provides for divorce by mutual consent. S.28 reads: "28. S.27 mentions the grounds for divorce and S.28 provides for divorce by mutual consent. S.28 reads: "28. Divorce by mutual consent.--(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and to the rules made thereunder, a petition for divorce may be presented to the district court by both the parties together on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. (2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the district court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized under this Act, and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree." So, in order to maintain an application under S.28 of the Act, the marriage should be solemnized under the Act. The question to be considered is whether the deeming provision in S.18 of the Act will make the marriage in question one solemnized under the Act. We think that it will. The above Section is contained in Chapter III which deals with registration of marriage celebrated in other forms. S.18 contains two deeming provisions (1) regarding the marriage and (2) the legitimacy of children. On registration of a marriage in accordance with S.15 and 16, a certificate of marriage has to be entered in the marriage certificate book in the specified form and on such entry being made, the marriage shall be deemed to be a marriage solemnized under the Act from the date of such entry. But so far as children are concerned, all of them born after the date of ceremony of the marriage shall be deemed to be legitimate. It can thus be seen that the deeming provision takes effect from the date of entry in the marriage certificate book so far as the marriage is concerned, and all children born after the date of ceremony of marriage are deemed legitimate. It can thus be seen that the deeming provision takes effect from the date of entry in the marriage certificate book so far as the marriage is concerned, and all children born after the date of ceremony of marriage are deemed legitimate. Under S.18, the deeming provision is absolute except to the extent mentioned in S.24(2) and for the purpose of S.28, the marriage has to be treated as one solemnized under the Act. In this connection it is apposite to quote the observation of Lord Asquith of Bishopstone in East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council (1952 A.C. 109 at 132): "If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it. One of these in this case is emancipation from the 1939 level of rents. The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs." 7. The only limitation to the deeming provision is what is contained in S.24(2) which provides that that Section shall not be applicable to marriages deemed to be solemnized within the meaning of S.18 of the Act. Except to that extent, full effect has to be given to the deeming provision contained in S.18, and in that view of the matter, a marriage registered under the Act has to be considered or treated as a marriage solemnized under the Act for the purpose of the Act. The exclusion of the operation of the deeming provision to the extent mentioned in S.24(2) is also an indication that for the purpose of claiming any relief under other Sections of the Act including S.28, the deeming provision will operate and a marriage registered under S.15 of the Act can be dissolved in accordance with the provisions in the Act. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the petition filed by appellants under S.28 of the Act is maintainable. 8. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the petition filed by appellants under S.28 of the Act is maintainable. 8. The decision in Lagna v. Shyamal (AIR 1975 Cal.6) was followed by the lower court to come to the conclusion that the application is not maintainable. In that case, the parties married according to Hindu rites and later registered the marriage under the Special Marriage Act. The wife filed a petition under S.25 of the Act for annulling the marriage by a decree of nullity. In considering the maintainability of the application after considering the scope of the Act, and particularly S.18, the Court held as follows: "It is thus seen that it is only for the purpose of sanctioning legitimacy to certain class of children that a marriage celebrated in other form and registered under the Special Marriage Act shall be deemed to be a marriage solemnized under the said Act and for no other purpose. S.24 again makes a clear distinction between a marriage solemnized under this Act and a marriage deemed to be solemnized under this Act within the meaning of S.18. S.24 sub-clause (1) lays down that "(1) Any marriage solemnized under this Act shall be null and void and may be so declared by a decree of nullity if -(i) any of the conditions specified in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of S.4 had not been fulfilled, or (ii) the respondent was impotent at the time of the marriage and at the time of the institution of the suit". Sub-section (2) of this section reads as follows: "Nothing contained in this section shall apply to any marriage deemed to be solemnized under this Act within the meaning of S.18, but the registration of any such marriage under Chapter III may be declared to be of no effect if the registration was in contravention of any conditions specified in clauses (a) to (e) of S.15". Thus it is seen that it is very clear that the provisions of S.24(1) do not apply to a marriage deemed to be solemnized under the Act within the meaning of S.18 but for non-fulfilment of conditions specified in clauses (a) to (e) of S.15, only the registration of such marriage under Chapter III may be declared to be of no effect and nothing more. This Section nor any other provision contained in this Act can even touch the marriage which has been celebrated in other form. This point, in our opinion, has again been set at rest by a specific provision namely S.42 of the Special Marriage Act. This is a saving clause and the Section reads as follows: "Nothing contained in this Act shall affect the validity of any marriage not solemnized under its provisions: nor shall this Act be deemed directly or indirectly to affect the validity of any mode of contracting marriage". This section means to say that this Act has no effect on the validity of marriage solemnized otherwise than under the provisions of the Act. As has already been indicated, the only effect of registration is to give legitimacy to a certain class of children. Moreover the parties often like to have the marriage registered under this Act for having a good evidence of the marriage. A marriage celebrated in other form can simply be registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act and that registration can again be declared to be of no effect for non-fulfilment of certain conditions. 14. The petitioner's definite case being that the marriage between them celebrated earlier according to Hindu rites and the parties simply registered the marriage according to the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, the learned judge was was quite right to hold that the provisions of S.25 are not available to the petitioner." With great respect, we are unable to agree with the above dictum. As stated earlier, S.18 contains two deeming provisions in relation to the marriage and legitimacy of children and the dates from which the deeming takes effect are different. From the above provision it is clear that the object of the deeming provision is not only to legitimize the children born in the wedlock but also to treat the marriage registered under the Act as one solemnized under the Act. We are also of the opinion that the provision contained in S.24(2) is not in negation of the marriage being treated as one solemnized under the Act for the purposes of other provision but is an in indication to the contra. We are also of the opinion that the provision contained in S.24(2) is not in negation of the marriage being treated as one solemnized under the Act for the purposes of other provision but is an in indication to the contra. S.42 only declares that the validity of any marriage not solemnized under the Act shall not be affected nor the validity of any other mode of marriage be affected by the provisions of the Act and it has no bearing on the question involved. We therefore dissent from the aforesaid decision, with respect, and hold that the present application under S.28 of the Act is maintainable. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the order of the lower court and remand the case to that court to be disposed of in accordance with law and in the light of this judgment. We also hold that in computing the period within which a decree has to be passed under S.28(2), the period of the pendency of the appeal in this Court shall be excluded. No costs. Transmit the records to the lower court forthwith. Allowed.