In order to establish a valid Hindu marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the party alleging marriage must prove that the marriage was solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party.

This application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 9-8-85 passed by the District Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Suit (D) No. 8/1981 holding the opposite party Sowala Gogoi to be the legally married wife of the petitioner, Khiteswar Phukan.

2. The opposite party Sowvala Gogoi filed a petition before the District Judge, Dibrugarh under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter the Act) read with Section 4 of the Marriage Law (Amendment) Act, 1976 for a decree for judicial separation contending, inter alia, that she was the wife of the petitioner having been married to him on 14th ;March, 1980 according to Hindu rites. The petitioner resisted the said petition by contending that the opposite party was not his wife and that she was never married to him. During the pendency of the said petition the opposite party filed another application under Section 24 of the Act claiming payment of alimony at the rate of Rs. 500 -per month. The said application was also opposed by the petitioner on the ground, inter alia, that the opposite party was not his wife and. as such, not entitled to any maintenance. The learned District Judge allowed the petition under Section 24 and ordered payment of alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. A revision petition was filed against the said order before the High Court which was numbered as Civil Revision Revision No.299/82. The High Court by judgment and order dated 16-5-84 set aside the order passed by the District Judge, on the ground that while passing the impugned order the learned District Judge did not follow the legal principles in that regard and did not consider the relevant factors necessary for the purpose. The District Judge was directed to rehear the application under Section 24 as well as the petition under Section 10 of the Act. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction of the High Court, the learned District Judge heard the matter afresh, examined witnesses and by the impugned order dated 9-5-85 held that the opposite party was the legally married wife of the petitioner. It is this order that has been challenged by the present revision petition.

3. Before dealing with the contentions of the parties, it will be appropriate to briefly state the facts of the case. The case of the opposite party, Sowala Gogoi was that the petitioner Khiteswar had married her according to the Hindu Marriage rites on 14-3-80 and thereafter she lived with him as his wife in his official quarter and also sometimes with his parents at their ancestral home at Asamiya Gaon. When she stayed with the parents of the petitioner, the petitioner who was working at Namrup, visited her from time to time. However, after sometime he stopped visiting her all together and even did not make any enquiry about her. She, therefore, went to Namrup herself. On arrival there, she was not allowed to enter the house. She had to pass time in the Varendah. She stayed for five days and nights in the Verandah before she was allowed to enter the house. She was ill-treated, hit and tortured. On March 23, 1980 at about 7 in the morning, the petitioner soon after he returned from his duty, started beating her. As a result, she had to return to her parents house. Later she filed the petition for judicial separation. An application was also filed claiming maintenance.

4. All the aforesaid facts were denied by Khiteswar. It was contended that the opposite party Sowala was never married to him. His version of the case was that in the month of March, 1980, Sowala, all on a sudden appeared in his quarter and stayed there as his guest for a few days. After much pursuation she was sent back to her parents house but instead of going there, she went to his parents house and stayed with them for some days. Again she came to Namrup and stayed there for some days in his quarter in spite of being repeatedly asked not to do so. In fact, she wanted to marry the petitioner and exp