The petitioners submitted that there is nothing in the Hindu Marriage Act of 1956 that mandates that marriage should take place only between a Hindu man and a Hindu woman.
When contacted for further details about the marriage, the petitioner's lawyer said the court has kept the matter for further hearing on February 12.
The inter-faith couple, represented by advocate Utkarsh Singh, have contended that the 30-day notice period discourages couples like them from getting married.
The court said publication of such a notice and inviting objections to it, “would be an infringement of the fundamental rights of liberty and privacy”.
According to the police, the Koyilandy native and the girl got married under the Special Marriage Act in October, as the latter’s family had objected to their relationship.
A bench of Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Asha Menon issued notice to the Centre on the plea and asked it to file a counter affidavit within four weeks.
If customary laws define marriage to include same-sex union, other statutes will recognise it: Delhi HC
The observations by the bench came while hearing the pleas of two same-sex couples, one seeking to get married under the SMA and the other for registration of their wedding under the FMA.
The women are part of the team that built north India's leading clinic specializing in mental health and learning disabilities for children and young adults.
PIL against 30-day notice period under Special Marriage Act: HC seeks Centre, Kejriwal government response
The plea says the 30-day notice period inviting objections to the marriage directly impinge on the fundamental rights of the petitioners.
The petition has urged the court to declare as 'illegal, null, void and unconstitutional' the provisions of the Act which lay down the procedure of 30 day notice for inviting objections.
The counsel appearing for petitioner Nandini Praveen referred to the apex court's landmark verdict declaring Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution.