JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal by Defendant No. 1, Shahabi Bibi, in a suit brought by the Plaintiff, Kamaruddin Sarkar, for restitution of conjugal rights. The sole question in the case is whether this Defendant was ever legally married to the Plaintiff. The Munsif held that the marriage had not been proved, and he further expressed his opinion that upon the facts alleged by Plaintiff and his witnesses no valid marriage had been effected. The District Judge on appeal believed the evidence of the Plaintiff and his witnesses and, holding that this Defendant's objections were mere quibbles, gave Plaintiff a decree. The point for our determination is whether on the facts as found by the District Judge there was a valid marriage of Plaintiff and Defendant. The question turns on whether the parties gave their consent the one to the other. What happened was that the majlis assembled in the khuli or courtyard. The Defendant is said to have been somewhere in the inner apartments with other ladies, but in the same ban. The Plaintiff's story is that five men were sent to obtain the bride's consent and that they returned announcing that they had obtained it. The Mulla then performed the remainder of the marriage ceremony. He admits that he did not hear the bride give her consent. The Plaintiff states that afterwards he went into the inner apartments, where the bride's mother put the bride's hand in his. The marriage does not appear to have been consummated and the Defendant who had according to custom returned the following day to her father's house never came back to the Plaintiff. On these facts we agree with the Munsif that there was no valid marriage. The parties were adults and the woman a widow. The marriage was not performed through vakils. Under the Mahomedan law it is essential that in such a case words of proposal and acceptance must be uttered by the contracting parties in each other's presence and hearing and in the presence of two male or one male and two female witnesses who must be sane and adult Moslems, and the whole transaction must be completed at one meeting. See Wilson's Dig. of Mahomedan Law, p. 104; Hedaya, p. 26; and Aklemanessa Bibi v. Mahomed Hatem ILR 31 cal. 849 (1904). This, it is clear, was not done in the case before us. See Wilson's Dig. of Mahomedan Law, p. 104; Hedaya, p. 26; and Aklemanessa Bibi v. Mahomed Hatem ILR 31 cal. 849 (1904). This, it is clear, was not done in the case before us. It has been brought to our notice that the Defendant shortly after the Munsif's decree married another man and that a child has been born of that marriage. 2. The appeal is therefore allowed, the judgment and decree of the District Judge set aside, and the decree of the Munsif restored. Under the circumstances of the case, we direct each party to bear her and his own costs respectively in this and the lower Appellate Court.