( 1 ) RULE. Learned Advocate Mrs. M. S. Sharma waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 3. Learned A. G. P. Mr. S. R. Divetia waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

( 2 ) WITH the consent of the parties Advocates, the matter is heard today for final hearing.

( 3 ) IN response to our notice issued on 19th March, 1997, the respondent No. 3 has kept present before us Miss Varsha-his daughter.

( 4 ) WE have ascertained the desire of Miss Varsha who has grown adult on 31st january, 1997 as her date of birth is 10th January, 1979. The other party has no dispute about her date of birth.

( 5 ) THE petitioner in the petition has alleged that he came in contact with Varshaben since last 2 to 3 years and got married as per Hindu Rites on 31st January, 1997. On that very day they got their marriage registered before the Registrar of Marriages, Wadaj, ahmedabad. They have produced the xerox copy of registration certificate wherefrom it appears that Rohitkumar B. Joshi has acted as the priest. The said Rohitkumar B. Joshi is also present in the Court in the company of the petitioner at the instance of the petitioner as he also happens to be a friend of the petitioner.

( 6 ) UNDER the provisions of Sec. 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a Hindu Marriage is required to be registered under the rules framed by the State Government. Accordingly at page 12 of the petition, the copy of Memorandum of Marriage duly got registered with the Registrar of Marriages, Wadaj, Ahmedabad is produced. The said Memorandum of marriage bears name, address and signatures of bridegroom, bride and the priest. It does not contain the name, address and signature of father or guardian of bride or bridegroom as it is alleged that bridegroom and bride both are major and of marriageable age. A hindu Marriage is required to be registered under Sec. 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The question is whether the present marriage alleged by the petitioner with Varsha is a Hindu Marriage or not ? On verification the petitioner Varshaben and said rohitkumar who are present before us in presence of their Advocates have stated before us the neither of the rites nor any of ceremonies even including Saptapadi has taken place. To have a valid Hindu Marriage essential rites which may be said to be the requirement under any ceremonial marriage are invocation before sacred fire and Saptapadi. The petitioner and Varshaben both have admitted before us that they are Hindus and are therefore governed under Hindu Law. They have customs in their community. If they want to marry, then, the essential rites for ceremonial marriages are as stated above, namely, invocation before the sacred fire and Saptapadi. When the essential rites are admittedly not performed, it cannot be said to be a Hindu Marriage. In the instant case, the petitioner and Varshaben and the priest-Rohitkumar has admitted that no essential rites were performed either at Kalol or at Ahmedabad or at any other place before registration of marriage. Thus, there in no Hindu Marriage between the petitioner and varshaben. When there is no Hindu Marriage is accordance with law, the registration of such marriage does not make a Hindu Marriage. The marriage is registered by the registrar on the presumption and the statements that valid Hindu Marriage has taken place between the petitioner and Varshaben. When all the concerned parties have admitted that no essential rites to conform a valid Hindu Marriage are performed, there is no valid Hindu Marriage and the registration of such Hindu Marriage does not make a marriage at all, much less, a valid marriage. When there is no marriage as per hindu rites between the Hindus the question of registration thereof under Sec. 8 of the hindu Marriage Act does not arise and even if the marriage is registered the registration in our opinion is illegal, bad and ineffective. This apart, all the parties concerned, namely, the petitioner, Varshabe