1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed against the decree and judgments dated 20.06.2016 in C.M.A.Nos.44 and 45 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court at Kumbakonam reversing the decree and judgments dated 30.06.2015 in H.M.O.P.Nos.68 and 69 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court at Kumbakonam.

2. Since the issues are inter-related to each other, both the appeals are taken up together and decided by this common judgment.

3. This appellant herein is the wife of the respondent herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rank mentioned in the civil miscellaneous second appeals.

4. The appellant herein would aver among other things that she filed a petition for declaring marriage alleged to have taken place between herself and the respondent herein on 12.04.2012 as null and void in H.M.O.P.No.50 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Cuddalore. Similarly, the respondent herein had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.111 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sub- Court, Thanjavur. While so, the appellant preferred a Tr.C.M.P.No.324 of 2012 for transfer of the respondent's petition in H.M.O.P.No.111 of 2012 to be tried along with H.M.O.P.No.50 of 2012. By an order dated, 06.11.2012, this Court transferred both the petitions to the Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam and petition filed by this appellant for nullity was renumbered as H.M.O.P.No.68 of 2013 (H.M.O.P.No.50 of 2012) and the respondent's petition for restitution of conjugal rights was renumbered as H.M.O.P.No.69 of 2013 (H.M.O.P.No.111 of 2012).

5. The Court below tried both the petitions together and declared, that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is null and void and dismissed the petition filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Thanjavur, in C.M.A.Nos.44 and 45 of 2015 which was later transferred to the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court) at Kumbakonam. On an appeal, the orders of the Court below were set aside by the appellate Court in favour of this respondent. Aggrieved over the order of the appellate Court, the appellant is before this Court praying for the relief stated supra.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant through the written arguments would submit that the marriage in dispute was registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriage Act, 2009. However, in case of Hindus, there should be a registration of a Hindu marriage under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriage Act 2009, if at all there had been a marriage either under Section 7 or 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act prior to the said registration. In support of his contention, he drew the attention of this Court reported in 2014 (6) CTC 129, S.Balakrishna Pandian Vs. Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram and Others. The said principle is also echoed in the judgment reported in 2016(1) L.W.747, Jayanthi Vs I.G. Of Registration, Chennai and others. When that being the factual position of the matter, the first appellate Court ought to have found that to constitute a valid registration of the marriage, there should be a proof of a valid Hindu Marriage, however, in the case on hand, it has not been done either under Section 7 or 7-A of the said Act. To sum up, he would submit that there is no solemnization of the Hindu Marriage between the parties prior to registration of the marriage and the registration under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriage Act, 2009 is unlawful and illegal and hence, the marriage between the parties has to be declared as a nullity. Therefore, he prays for appropriate orders.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent through his written submission would submit that the appellate Court based on evidence, oral and documentary evidence cam