K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

1. An infantile disorder has put the appellant and respondent into this trouble of fighting cases in the Family Court and before this court.

2. The appellant was born on 3.5.1980. On 28.9.1998 when she had just crossed the border line of 18 years as provided in S.5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, both of them in the presence of Babitha, stated to be a friend, and others in a Mutt of which RW5 was the priest, got married themselves garlanding each other as stated by RW.5. Immediately after the marriage, both of them went to their own houses. Admittedly, the marriage has not been consummated. Later, the appellant girl found out the folly behind these and had a rethinking, perhaps, due the counselling by the parents and relatives. She filed O.P.No.564/98 in the Family Court, Kozhikode seeking a declaration that the ceremonies conducted on 28.9.1998 does not result in a marriage and consequently for a declaration that the appellant does not have the status of a wife of the respondent. This petition had to be filed, in the wake of an advertisement appeared in one among the vernacular dailies at the instance of the respondent that the appellant was his wife. As a counterblast to O.P.No.564/ 98, the respondent filed O.P.No.615/98 seeking restitution of conjugal rights with the appellant. Both these were tried together and O.P.No.564/98 was dismissed finding that there was valid marriage between the two and consequently O.P.No.615/98 for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed. The common order of the Family Court is impugned in these appeals.

3. It is contended by the appellant that when the alleged ceremonies were conducted on 28.9.1998, the appellant had just crossed few more months after her 18th birth anniversary and the consent given by her was not a free consent. There was no arrangement for such a marriage by her parents. In such circumstances, there was consent of the parents as well. It is further submitted by her that though she fell in love with the respondent in her later teen age, she did not have real intention to marry him and to live with him as husband and wife. It was because of some undue influence and persuasion her alleged consent was obtained and it was after administering a sweet candy with some drug that she had been taken to the Mutt manned by RW.5 to conduct the ceremonies to result in a marriage as alleged by the respondent. She had never lived with the respondent. The marriage had never been consummated. There was no marriage at all and the ceremonies performed cannot be taken as a marriage as no ceremonies as available in the community of the parties as enjoined in S.7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, have been performed, to solemnise a marriage. Therefore, there was no marriage at all and the respondent cannot style himself as the husband of the appellant and consequently cannot claim restitution of conjugal rights.

4. The letters Ext.B 1 series were produced by the respondent to show that the appellant had given free consent for the marriage. It was also contended that the long standing relationship between them and her visit in his house and the presentation of the ring which was also accepted by the appellant are sufficient to indicate that her consent was freely given and that there was a valid marriage. The parties were not within prohibitory limits as enjoined in S.5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, there was no question of declaring the marriage as null and void. The only prohibition with respect to the consent is that the parties shall not be below the age of 18 years. Admittedly by the appellant, the appellant had crossed the age of 18 years on 28.9.1998. Therefore, consent of the parents was not required as per the Act. She was a major to accord her own consent for the marriage. RW.5, the priest had spoken to before the court below about her free will and consent. In the presence of friends and relatives ceremonies of the solemnisation of the marriage in terms