The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Muslim law, mere cohabitation with an assurance to marry in the future does not constitute a valid marriage.

( 1 ) BOTH the above appeals are against the judgment delivered on 4-2-2000 in Civil Proceeding No. 42 of 1993 of the Court of Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. Petitioners in the said Civil Procedure are the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2000 whereas respondents in that Civil Proceeding are the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2000. For the sake of convenience, appellants in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2000 are hereinafter referred to as the petitioners and appellants in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2000 are referred to as respondents.

( 2 ) PARTIES to the proceeding are mahomedans belonging to the Islamic faith and they are governed by their personal law. Petitioner No. 1 claims to be the legally married wife of respondent no. 1 and the petitioner No. 2 to be the male child born out of the wedlock. Respondent No. 2 is the father of respondent No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 filed an application for invoking the jurisdiction of the family court under Section 7 (l) (b) read with (e) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (in short, 'the Act') for declaration of their status as the wife and son of respondent No. 1. According to her case, taking advantage of their family relationship, by which respondent No. 1 is a cousin, intimacy developed between the two and on the assurance of marriage given by the respondent No. 1, she cohabited with him and begot petitioner no. 2. When respondent No. 1 declined to treat her as his wife and the child as their son and also declined to provide maintenance, that she filed the aforesaid Civil Proceeding.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed a written statement disputing to the allegations of his relationship with the family of the petitioners and also relating to assurance to marry, cohabitation and begetting the child. He also pleaded that in the Panchayat of the Community on the issue of pregnancy of petitioner no. 1 it was resolved that one Sk. Hardia is the author of the child and accordingly a fine of Rs. 5. 000/- (rupees five thousand)was imposed on him by the 'bhadraloks'.

( 4 ) BOTH the parties led evidence in support of their claim. Petitioner no. 1 examined eight witnesses including herself as p. W. No. 1 and her parents as PWs-2 and 3. She also relied on Ext. 1, the decision of the panchayat and the notices, Exts. 2 and 3 referring to the further Panchayat of the muslim community of the locality besides a letter in Postcard Ext. 4. Respondents examined five witnesses and that includes respondent No. 1 as O. P. W. No. 5 and respondent No. 2, as O. P. W. No. 1.

( 5 ) RESPONDENTS challenged maintainability of the proceeding before the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack and as per the direction of this Court in O. J. C. No. 13319 of 1996 that was directed to be decided as a preliminary issue. Both the parties led evidence before decision on the preliminary issue. Therefore, the Family Court disposed of all the issues but gave preference to record a finding on the issue of maintainability. The family Court referred to Section 7 (l) (b) of the Act and held that the proceeding is maintainable to grant the declaration of status. Both the parties before us do not challenge that finding. Therefore, the decision of the family Court on that issue is confirmed.

( 6 ) REFERRING to the evidence on record, the Family Court recorded the finding that on the face of the pleading of the petitioner no. 1 and her own evidence that she cohabited with respondent no. 1 on the assurance of marriage, a finding was recorded that she has not acquired the status of a legally married wife. Petitioners being the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2000, challenge that finding on the ground that in a muslim marriage though no rituals and functions are necessary and the Muslim marriage being a civil contract, consent of respondent No. 1 to marry the petitioner No. 1 and thereafter cohabitation with her is sufficient to prove her status as the wife of respondent No. 1. In that respect learned counsel for the petitioners invites our attention to A