Compliance with the conditions for a valid 'Hindu Marriage' under Sec. 7 and Sec. 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the requirement of establishing valid conversion to Hindu religion prior to marriage are essential for seeking dissolution of marriage under the provisions of the Act.

Headnote:
Conversion - Validity of Hindu Marriage - Sec. 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sec. 7, Sec. 5 - [Sec. 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955] - The court discussed the validity of the Hindu marriage under Sec. 7 and Sec. 5 of the Act, emphasizing the need for compliance with the conditions for a valid 'Hindu Marriage' and the solemnization of marriage in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of both parties. The court highlighted the requirement of establishing valid conversion to Hindu religion prior to marriage and the necessity of producing documents to establish compliance with the provisions of the Act.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants sought dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent under Sec. 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, due to irretrievable breakdown. The Family Court dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of evidence to establish conversion of appellant no.2 to Hindu religion prior to marriage.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellants' marriage could not be held valid under the Act without establishing valid conversion to Hindu religion prior to marriage. It held that the production of documents to establish compliance with the provisions of the Act was necessary for the proper disposal of the matter.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Family Court was justified in dismissing the petition seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Sec. 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, due to lack of evidence to establish conversion of appellant no.2 to Hindu religion prior to marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for compliance with the conditions for a valid 'Hindu Marriage' under Sec. 7 and Sec. 5 of the Act, and the requirement of establishing valid conversion to Hindu religion prior to marriage. It held that the production of documents to establish compliance with the provisions of the Act was necessary for the proper disposal of the matter.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, the order of the Family Court was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the Family Court for re-consideration in the light of the observations made by the court. The Family Court was directed to re-consider the matter and dispose of it in accordance with the law, with the additional documents now placed by the appellants being forwarded for adjudication.

JUDGMENT

RAVI V.HOSMANI,J. - Challenging judgment dtd. 6/8/2021 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangaluru, in M.C.No.316/2020 this joint appeal is filed.

2. Brief facts as stated are that marriage of appellants was solemnised on 9/12/2005 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Kadri Temple Road, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada District, in accordance with Hindu rituals and customs. The marriage was registered by Registrar of Marriage, Mangaluru, on 25/1/2007. Thereafter they lived as husband and wife for 11 years. During their wedlock a male child named Zayn Ferrao was born on 8/10/2015.

3. However, due to misunderstanding and disagreement between them, they developed aversion towards each other. Despite efforts by parents, relatives and well-wishers to bring them together, there was no reconciliation and they were living separately for more than three years. Stating that their marriage had broken down irretrievably and there was no possibility of reunion, appellants filed M.C.No.316/2020 under Sec. 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, ('Act' for short) seeking for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.

4. In the petition, appellant no.2 stated that he had paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000.00 to appellant no.1 towards permanent alimony for her maintenance and their child. Receipt of said amount was admitted by appellant no.1.

5. In support of their petition, appellants got themselves examined as PW.1 and PW.2. Appellant no.2 in his evidence stated that he was a Christian by birth, while appellant no.1 was a Hindu. Prior to marriage, he converted to Hindu religion. Thereafter their marriage was solemnised as per Hindu customs and rituals. However, Family Court dismissed the petition on ground that no evidence was forthcoming to establish that appellant no.2 had converted to Hindu religion prior to marriage and therefore their marriage was invalid under Hindu Marriage Act. Aggrieved by same appellants are before this Court.

6. Smt. Haleema Ameen, learned counsel appearing for appellants submitted that appellant no.2 had converted to Hindu religion on 7/12/2005 by subscribing to Arya Samaj principles. It was submitted that joint affidavit declaring intention thus was sworn to and application for celebration of his marriage with appellant no.1 was submitted to Hon'ble Secretary, Arya Samaj, Mangaluru, on 25/11/2005. However, said documents were not placed before the Family Court.

7. Relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Perumal Nadar dead by LRs Vs. Ponnu Swamy reported in (1970)1 SCC 605, it was submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court had clarified law that no formal ceremony was required to effect conversion to Hindu religion 'except expression of a bonafide intention to convert to Hindu faith accompanied by conduct unequivocally expressing that intention'. Referring to said ratio, learned counsel submitted that his affidavit handed over to Arya Samaj, Mangaluru, contained his unequivocal expression and in view of solmenisation of marriage with appellant no.1 as per customs of Arya Samaj, there was due compliance and their marriage under provisions of the Act was valid. Therefore, Family Court was not justified in dismissing petition on ground of lack of evidence to establish conversion of appellant no.2, especially, when appellants had produced certificate of registration of their marriage under the Act. On above ground, learned counsel sought for allowing appeal and dissolve marriage between appellants.

8. Heard learned counsel and perused record.

9. Material facts namely, that appellant no.1 was a Hindu and appellant no.2 was a Christian by faith, prior to their marriage is not in dispute. They claim to be married as per customs of Arya Samaj on 9/12/2005. Registration of marriage under the Act on 25/1/2007 is not in dispute. Family Court dismissed their petition which assailed herein. Therefore, the only point that would arise for consideration is:

"Whether Family Court was justified in dismissing t