SamudralaGovindarajulu, J.

The respondent in this appeal, who married the appellant on 20.06.1986, filed O.P. No.235 of 2003 in Family Court, Secunderabad under Section 13(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for direction that their marriage is null and void and seeking relief of divorce. They have no children. They adopted a female child by name D.Y.Deepika on 12.11.1996 through Family Court when the girl was aged 6 years. The family Court, Secunderabad by order dated 07.09.2004 allowed O.P. No.235 of 2003 dissolving marriage between the respondent and the appellant; and also giving visiting rights to the appellant to see the minor child whenever she desired to see. Questioning the said order, the appellant filed this appeal before this Court.

2) There is no dispute that the respondent is Hindu by religion and the appellant is Christian by religion. It was a love marriage between them. There is no dispute that the marriage was solemnised at Ramalayam of Nizamabad as per Hindu Rites. Both the parties are employed. The husband sought for relief in the lower Court against the wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The wife filed counter-affidavit in the lower Court opposing the petition on merits as well as on technicalities. It is her contention inter alia that provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are not applicable to her as she is a Christian by birth and is not governed by Hindu Law. It is her contention that adoption of Deepika is evidenced by registered adoption deed dated 12.11.1996 and facilitated by order dated 18.11.1996 of the Family Court, Hyderabad in O.P. No.827 of 1996. According to her, the child Deepika was taken from Missionary of Charity of Mother Theresa represented by Sister Superior M.Ethel, which is Christian organisation taking care of orphans and who generally baptizes every child that comes to it. According to the appellant, the child Deepika is also a Christian. The appellant also has got complaints of cruelty against the respondent/husband.

3) Without there being any pleading, during her cross-examination as R.W-1 before the lower Court, the appellant deposed that in two ways her marriage with the respondent was solemnised; firstly on 20.06.1986 as per Hindu rites and customs and on 10.07.1986 as per Christian rites. She says that the marriage was performed by one Prabhudas who is licence holder, but not in a church. The husband as P.W-1 in cross-examination stated that the appellant did not convert into Hinduism even after marriage, as there was no conversion into Hinduism. He says that she followed Hindu customs. He further says that he did not convert into Christianity.

4) In the light of the above facts which are on record, it is primary contention of the appellant/wife in this appeal that since the appellant is not a Hindu and is a Christian by religion, provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are not applicable to her and that the petition filed by the respondent/husband against her in the lower Court for divorce/nullity under the said Act is not maintainable and in turn, the lower Court has no jurisdiction to pass decree of divorce between the parties.

5) The point which emerges for decision in this appeal is whether provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are applicable to the marriage between the parties, who belong to two different religions viz., Hindu and Christianity; and consequently whether decree of divorce passed by the lower Court is legally sustainable.

6) Having regard to ticklish legal controversy involved in this case, this Court took the services of Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, Advocate as Amicus Curiae in this case.

7) The lower Court observed that though the wife/appellant belongs to Christian religion, both the parties were married as per Hindu rites and religion and she joined him and lived like a Hindu woman and adopted the child by following norms under Hindu Law as can be seen from the photographs filed and that therefore, she has got faith and