A Hindu marriage is valid if it is solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party, and the saptapadi ceremony is not essential for a valid marriage if it is not part of the customary rites.

1. - This civil miscellaneous appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is directed against the decree of the District Judge, Jhunjhunu, dated February 11, 1971, in proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent Guman Singh moved an application against the appellant under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights. It was alleged in the application that the marriage between the parties was solemnized according to the Hindu rites on January 19, 1965, at village Surjanpura. After the marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife till Posh Samwat Year 2022. The appellant then went to her father's house at Surjanpura. The respondent further alleged that on Mah sud 9, Samwat year 2022, Shanker Singh of village Randhana forcibly took away the appellant from Surjanpura and since that date, the appellant has been living with Shanker Singh. This application was contested by the appellant on the ground that no marriage took place between the parties. She further alleged that she was the wife of Shanker Singh of village Randhana.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court:-

"1- D;k Jherh lqUnj dqaoj xqekuflag dh fookfgr iUrh gS ,oa mudk fookg fgUnq /keZ ds vuqlkj gqvk\ 2- D;k izkFkhZ & nkEiR; vf/dkjksa ds izR;fLFkkiu dh fMdzh ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- nknjlh D;k gksxh\"
The learned District Judge, on consideration of the evidence led by the parties, held in favour of the respondent and granted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant. It is in these circumstances that the present appeal has been filed by the wife Sunder Kaur.

4. The sole question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the marriage between the parties was solemnized on January 19, 1965 at Surjanpura. Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with performance of ceremonies for a Hindu marriage. It runs as under:-

"7. Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage.-(1) a Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto.

(2) Where such rites and ceremonies include the Saptapadi (that is, taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly belong the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken."
It is thus abundantly clear that this section does not lay down any special or particular kind or form of ceremonies to be compulsorily observed in all Hindu marriage. In fact, the form of marriage prescribed by "shastras" is subject to modification by custom or usage. The expression "customary rites and ceremonies" means such "shastric" ceremonies' which the race or community, to which the parties belong, is customarily following. Sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act makes it clear that when such rites and ceremonies include the ceremony of 'saptapedi", the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. If it is proved in a given case that "saptapadi" is not a part of the customary rite, it need not be performed. Since a Hindu marriage is sacrament, the performance of the customary ceremony must be observed in order to make a marriage valid. In the instant case, no evidence has been adduced to show if there was any particular customary ceremony prevailing in the family of the parties. However, evidence had been adduced to show if there was any particular customary ceremony prevailing in the family of the parties. However, evidence had been led on both sides on the point as to what ceremonies had been performed at the marriage. According to the appellant, her marriage was solemnized with Shanker Singh and not with respondent Guman Singh. DW.5 Bhagirathmal has mentioned about the ceremonies which were observed at the time of the marriage of the appellant with Shanker Singh. He has deposed that the marriage was performed according to the