Question

Under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, what is the maximum fine that may be imposed for printing or publishing matter in contravention of provisions relating to in-camera proceedings?

• A. Fine up to five thousand rupees
• B. Fine up to one thousand rupees
• C. Fine up to two thousand rupees
• D. Fine up to five hundred rupees

Hint:

For Special Marriage Act questions, remember: In-camera Proceedings + Unauthorized Publication = Fine up to ₹1,000.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Instead of only recalling the number, it helps to notice that the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were drafted around the same period and use nearly identical language for protecting matrimonial privacy, including the in-camera proceeding rule and its penalty.

1. Fine up to five thousand rupees: A penalty this large would be disproportionate to the minor publication offence being punished here, and it also does not match the parallel provision in the Hindu Marriage Act, so this option can be set aside.
2. Fine up to one thousand rupees: Both the Special Marriage Act and its companion matrimonial statute cap this particular fine at one thousand rupees, consistent with treating unauthorised publication as a comparatively minor, deterrence-based offence rather than a serious crime.
3. Fine up to two thousand rupees: There is no cross-reference in either matrimonial statute to this intermediate figure for the publication offence.
4. Fine up to five hundred rupees: This undershoots the actual statutory cap and would understate the penalty fixed by the legislature.

Reading the Special Marriage Act alongside its sister enactment on this specific point confirms that the maximum fine for unauthorised publication of in-camera proceedings is one thousand rupees.

Answer 2

A useful cross-check here is to rank the offence itself. Printing or publishing details of an in-camera matrimonial hearing without permission is treated by the Special Marriage Act as a minor procedural violation carrying only a fine, unlike offences such as bigamy or cruelty within the same family of matrimonial law which attract imprisonment. Ranking the given figures against that seriousness narrows the field.

1. Fine up to five thousand rupees: A ceiling this high would place a purely procedural publication offence on par with far more serious statutory wrongs, which is inconsistent with how the Act treats this violation, so it is ruled out.
2. Fine up to one thousand rupees: This modest ceiling fits an offence that is procedural in nature, aimed simply at discouraging unauthorised disclosure rather than punishing serious wrongdoing, and it is the figure actually written into Section 22.
3. Fine up to two thousand rupees: This sits between the two extremes but has no statutory basis in the Act for this offence.
4. Fine up to five hundred rupees: While proportionate in spirit, this figure is lower than what the Act actually prescribes, so it understates the true ceiling.

Matching the seriousness of the offence to the statutory language confirms that the maximum fine is one thousand rupees.

The correct answer is therefore Fine up to one thousand rupees.