L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

FCA No. 149 of 2013 is filed against the order, dated 10.7.2012 passed by the Family Court-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in IA No. 1871 of 2011 in FCOP No. 532 of 2011. The consequential order passed by the trial Court rejecting the F.C.O.P. is challenged in FCA (Sr) No. 8146 of 2013.

2. The appellant is the wife of the respondent. She filed the F.C.O.P. under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') against the respondent for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. It was pleaded that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 16.4.2006 in a non-ceremonial function in an apartment at Kirlamoudi Layout, Visakhapatnam and that both of them have exchanged garlands in a party arranged at Chrome Pub and Restaurant with the participation of friends and family members. After narrating the developments that have taken place ever since their marriage and the nature of misunderstandings between them, the appellant pleaded that the respondent denied her the matrimonial company, without any valid basis or justification. Accordingly, she prayed for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

3. The respondent filed IA No. 1871 of 2011 under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. with a prayer to reject the O.P. itself. He pleaded that even according to the description in the O.P., the appellant is a Muslim and it was not even mentioned that she has been converted into Hinduism at any point of time. He further stated that the appellant cannot invoke the provisions of the Act. The trial Court allowed the I.A. through its order, dated 10.7.2012 and thereby, the O.P itself came to be rejected.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the O.P. when seriously disputed questions of fact are involved. He contends that the appellant got herself converted into Hinduism and the marriage was performed strictly in accordance with the customs of Hinduism. He submits that even if the respondent has denied the manner, in which the marriage was performed, it is ultimately to be decided after trial and the rejection of the O.P. was not at all justified.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that nowhere in the F.C.O.P., the appellant has stated either that she has been converted into Hinduism or that her marriage was performed in accordance with the customs stipulated under Hindu Religion. He submits that when the respondent has described herself as Muslim, there is no way that the Court could have entertained the F.C.O.P. filed under the Act.

6. The appellant filed the F.C.O.P. under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. There does not appear to be any serious dispute of the fact that the parties have lived together as wife and husband. However, there is any amount of uncertainty as to the manner in which the marriage was performed.

7. Proceeding under the impression that the marriage between herself and the respondent has taken place according to the customs of the Hindu Religion, the appellant filed the F.C.O.P. under Section 9 of the Act. It is not necessary to refer to the various facts pleaded by the appellant in her O.P. After receiving the summons in the O.P., the respondent filed the I.A. under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. with a prayer to reject the plaint itself and the same was allowed.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Perumal v. Ponnuswami, AIR 1971 SC 2352. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Act can be applied to a marriage, even where there is some uncertainty about the personal status of one of the spouses. It was observed that once the marriage was performed, by following the basic tenets of Hindu Religion, proceedings can certainly be maintained under the Act. There is no quarrel with this principle.

9. In the context of dealing with an application under Rule 1