KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. By this appeal filed u/s 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the appellant seeks to set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2009 whereby a decree of restitution of conjugal rights was passed in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are that both the parties got married on 27.04.2005 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi and the marriage was registered on 12.05.05 vide registration certificate dated 12.05.05 at Delhi. That on the pretext of the brother of the appellant visiting from Australia the parents of the appellant called her to the parental house and she never returned thereafter. Consequently the respondent filed a petition u/s 97 Cr.P.C which was dismissed. The appellant on the other hand had filed a suit for declaration to declare the marriage as null and void which was withdrawn. Thereafter the respondent filed a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and vide judgment and decree dated 24.07.2009 the same was decreed in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

3. Counsel for the appellant states that the marriage between the parties was not solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Counsel further submits that in the absence of the said marriage being proved by the respondent, no decree u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act could have been passed by the learned trial court. Counsel further submits that the prerequisites as laid down u/s 9 were not fulfilled as no evidence was led by the respondent to prove that 'Saptapadi' was performed at the time of the marriage. Counsel further submits that even the marriage registration certificate could be of no help to the respondent once the said essential ceremony was not proved by the respondent. Counsel also submits that the appellant had filed a suit for declaration to get the said marriage declared as null and void but the said suit was withdrawn by the appellant in view of the petition filed by the respondent u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

4. Refuting the submissions of the counsel for the appellant, Mr. Bahl, counsel for the respondent supports the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge. Counsel submits that the respondent has duly proved on record the factum of marriage and therefore, no fault can be found in the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.7.2009 passed by the court of the learned ADJ u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

6. The case set up by the respondent husband in his petition filed u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was that both the parties got married on 27.4.2005 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi against the wishes of their parents. It has also been stated that the said marriage was performed according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies in the presence of two close friends of the respondent husband and the said marriage was registered on 12.5.2005 before the Registrar of Marriage at Saket, Delhi. It was also the case of the respondent husband that after the said marriage, the parents of the respondent had reconciled with their marriage and both the parties started residing together at the matrimonial home at Flat No. 130-B, First Floor, Motia Khan, New Delhi after mid of September, 2006. It was also stated that the parents of the appellant wife were still reluctant to agree to this marriage and the appellant was thus taken away by her parents and thereafter did not return back. The respondent had approached the Court of learned M.M. u/s 97 of Cr. P.C. and in the said proceedings the appellant had refused to join the company of the respondent.

7. The petition filed u/s 9 by the husband was duly contested by the appellant wife. The preliminary objection raised by the appellant in the written statement was that the marriage was not solemnize