A marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act requires both parties to be Hindus unless conducted under the Special Marriage Act, affecting claims of cohabitation or property.

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

The appellant is the petitioner in O.P. No.395/2012 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. She filed the petition claiming that she is the wife of the respondent herein. The reliefs sought in the petition were for recovery of gold ornaments and household articles, and for arrears of maintenance. By the impugned judgment, the Family Court dismissed her petition mainly on a finding that there was no legal marriage between the appellant and the respondent.

2. According to the appellant, she became the wife of the respondent through a “registered marriage” that took place on 23.10.2008 at the Perumkadavila Sub Registrar’s Office. She further claims that the marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at her residence in the presence of the parents of both parties. It is further alleged that, at the time of marriage, her parents gave her 75 sovereigns of gold ornaments and household articles worth ₹1,00,000/-. The respondent allegedly obtained 70 sovereigns out of those gold ornaments and misappropriated them for his personal purposes. The household articles were also entrusted to the respondent. Therefore, the appellant claims that she is entitled to recover 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments and the household articles. She also claimed past maintenance from January 2009 onwards, alleging that she had been abandoned and deserted by the respondent without providing any maintenance.

3. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, PW2 and CPW1, along with documentary evidence marked as Exts.A1 to A13 and Exts.B1 to B10. After evaluating the evidence, the trial court concluded that Ext.A1 marriage agreement is only a contract and would not confer upon the appellant and the respondent the legal status of husband and wife. The court further observed that, since the appellant belongs to the Christian religion and the respondent is a Hindu, a valid marriage between them is possible only under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 . The court also held that there was no proof of entrustment of gold ornaments or other articles with the respondent. Consequently, the court declined all the reliefs, including maintenance. 4. We have heard Sri. Ayyappan Sankar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri. B. Krishnamani, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. In view of the rival submissions, the points that arise for consideration are whether the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is valid and whether the appellant is entitled to the reliefs claimed.

6. After evaluating the pleadings of the appellant and the evidence adduced by her, we have no hesitation in holding that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is invalid. As rightly held by the trial court, Ext.A1 is merely a contract between the parties and would not confer any legal marital status upon them. Though the appellant claimed that a marriage ceremony was conducted at her residence in the presence of both families following Hindu rites and customs, she has no case that she had converted to Hinduism prior to such ceremony. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , a valid marriage can be solemnized only between two Hindus. When the appellant admittedly professes Christianity, and in the absence of pleadings or proof of conversion, she could have married the respondent, a Hindu, only in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 . Hence, we conclude that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is invalid.

7. Coming to the question whether the appellant is entitled to recover the gold ornaments or other articles allegedly given to the respondent, we no