K.G. Shankar, J.— The appellant resisted the petition laid by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for the restitution of the conjugal rights. The husband contended that there was no jural relationship of husband and wife between him and the respondent. The trial court held that the appellant is the husband of the respondent and granted decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Assailing the same, the present appeal is laid.

2. The appellant and the respondent were contemporaries in the college. Both of them were students of BITS, a private Engineering College at MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam. They thus knew each other.

3. The case of the respondent is:

(a) The appellant and the respondent belong to different communities. The respondent is about 8 years elder to the appellant. However, they fell in love with each other. They got their marriage solemnized at Simhachalam Devasthanam, Visakhapatnam, on 6.10.1992 in the presence of PW2, sister of the respondent and Pavan Kumar, a close friend of the appellant. The appellant and the respondent started living together at the house of the sister of the respondent.

(b) The appellant went on postponing to inform his parents about his marriage with the respondent. The respondent consequently requested her relatives and well-wishers, by name Annapoorna and K. Rohini to inform the parents of the appellant about the marriage of the appellant and the respondent. When Annapoorna and Rohini accordingly informed the parents of the appellant on 23.12.1992 about the marriage, they declined to accept the respondent as daughter-in-law owing to the disparity of the age and also because of the appellant and the respondent belong to different communities. The appellant in his turn deserted the respondent on 30.1.1993. The best efforts on the part of the respondent to restore the matrimony proved futile.

(c) The respondent lodged a complaint with III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, when she did not even know the whereabouts of the appellant. The Police registered First Information Report in Crime No.216 of 1993 as ‘man missing’ on the complaint of the respondent. The parents of the appellant produced the appellant before the Police but refused to accept the respondent as the daughter-in-law of the family.

(d) The respondent consequently lodged a complaint before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, under Sections 420 and 498A, IPC on 7.7.1993. The respondent also filed M.C.No.135 of 1995 seeking maintenance. The respondent was granted maintenance at Rs.250 per month by the trial court. The revision of the appellant in Cri R.C.No.1101 of 1996 before this Court was dismissed on 24.12.1998. The appellant has not been honouring the order of maintenance and has also deserted the respondent. Hence, the petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

4. The appellant, on the other hand, denied his marriage with the respondent. He denied about the mediation by Annapoorna and K. Rohini. He pointed out that the complaint lodged by the respondent was numbered as C.C.394 of 1997 on the file of the in Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, and that the case ended in acquittal after full-fledged trial. He also asserted that he has been paying maintenance awarded by the trial court regularly. He ultimately contended that as there is no jural relationship of man and wife between him and the respondent, the petition for restitution of conjugal rights deserves to be dismissed.

5. The respondent examined herself as PW1. She examined 5 other witnesses as PWs.2 to 6. The appellant examined himself as the only witness (RWl) on his side. Exs. A1 and A2 are the copies of the orders in M.C.No.135 of 1995 and Cri R.C.No.1101 of 1996 from M.C. No.135 of 1995. Further, Exs. X1 to X4 were also marked.

6. Sri C. Upendra, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that there is no legal relationship between the appellant and the respondent, so much so, the question of res