Basant, J.

How are the expressions "convert or reconvert" in explanation (c) to Section 2(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act to be understood and interpreted? In the absence of any specific procedure prescribed under pristine Hindu law, custom and statute how is the court to hold whether there has been such conversion or recon version to Hinduism? Is there not immediate need for legislature intervention and stipulation on this aspect to make law intelligible and user friendly? These questions disturbingly agitate the mind of this court in this Matrimonial Appeal.

2. The petitioners have come to this court aggrieved by the dismissal of their joint application for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appellants claim to be spouses. The 2nd appellant is a person who. By birth, is a Hindu. The 1st appellant was a Christian by birth. She continued to be a Christian till she contemplated marriage. The young couple belonging to different religions had fallen in love. Before marriage, according to the 1st appellant, she had converted to Hindu. Their marriage took place in accordance with the Hindu religious rites and rituals. Their marriage was registered at the Misravivaha Sangam Office at Cherpu. The marriage was solemnised on 16/7/1989. Strain developed in the matrimony. Disputes between them reached the court. O.P.No.1340/07 was filed by the wife against the husband claiming return of money and articles.

3. All disputes were settled by them. They prayed in their joint application that their marriage may be dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

4. There was no one to oppose the application and according to the appellants their affidavits were filed. It is further submitted that an affidavit of the witness, who had attended the marriage, had also been filed. The court below does not, in the impugned order, refer to the same. The records sent to us show that a copy of the affidavit filed by the stranger/witness dated 15/11/2007 is available in the file. The court below, by the impugned order, took the view that there is no valid solemnisation of marriage as per the Hindu Marriage Act. The relevant observations and findings of the court are extracted below.

"Point: First petitioner is a Christian by religion and second petitioner is a Hindu. Their marriage was registered on 16/7/1989 at Cherpu Misravivaham office. Petitioners contend that first petitioner was professing Hindu religion and marriage was solemnised as per Hindu Marriage Act. Hindu Marriage Act provides for marriage between 2 Hindus. Marriage was not registered as per Special Marriage Act. Petitioner has no case that she was converted into Hindu. Further there is no valid solemnisation of marriage according to Hindu custom and rites. Marriage registered before Misravivaha Sangam Office is not a marriage as per Hindu custom and rites. At any rate, there is no valid solemnization of marriage. Therefore the petition filed under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not maintainable. In the absence of valid solemnisation of marriage there cannot be a legal divorce."

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the stand taken up by the court below is absolutely incorrect and perverse. Parties have asserted that they were Hindus and they got married in accordance with the Hindu rites and ceremonies. There was no objections filed by anyone. In these circumstances, if the court entertained any reservation on the question whether the parties are Hindus and whether there was due solemnisation of marriage in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court below must have notified the parties about the alleged inadequacy felt by the court and must have given them an opportunity to adduce appropriate evidence. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that they have satisfactory evidence to place before court that the 1st appellant had embraced Hinduism prior to her m