JUDGMENT Dixit C.J.- 1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Additional District Judge of Satna rejecting the husband appellant's application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights. 2. The appellant's case was that he was married to the respondent-Shanti in Samvat-2016; that after the marriage Shanti lived with him for some time and then went to her mother's residence; and that since then despite his repeated requests Shanti was refusing to live and cohabit with him. The suit was resisted by Shanti mainly on the ground that she never married the appellant; that if there was any marriage, it was not legal and valid as at the time of the alleged marriage she was a minor and could be given away in marriage only by her natural guardian, who was the mother; and that her mother never gave her away In marriage to the appellant. 3. The learned trial Judge found that the respondent Shanti was the legally married wife of the appellant and that she was refusing to live with the appellant. He did not give any finding as to whether there was any reasonable cause for Shanti to withdraw from the society of the appellant. However, he came to the conclusion that this was not a case in which the Court should exercise its discretion in favour of the husband and grant a decree for restitution of conjugal rights as he married Shanti "under mysterious circumstances without the consent of her mother and with the connivance and help of one Ramkumar, an alleged brother of Shanti, and this Ramkumar had no right to give away Shanti 'n marriage" to the appellant. Accordingly, the husbands petition under section 9 was rejected. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have reached the conclusion that this appeal must be dismissed. In the present case, as both the fact and the validity of the marriage were disputed, the trial Court was required to find specially whether the rites and ceremonies necessary to constitute a legal marriage were performed. The learned Additional District Judge has given no finding as to the performance of the requisite ceremonies. All that he did was to find that the marriage between the parties took place. This is not enough. As has been held in Suriyamoni Dasi Vs. The learned Additional District Judge has given no finding as to the performance of the requisite ceremonies. All that he did was to find that the marriage between the parties took place. This is not enough. As has been held in Suriyamoni Dasi Vs. Kali Kanta Das ILR 28 Cal 37, and Rampiayar VS. Deva Rama AIR 1923 Rangoon 202, when in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights the validity of the marriage itself is disputed, it is not enough to find that the marriage took place, leaving it to be presumed that the rites an' ceremonies necessary to constitute a legal marriage in the particular case were performed the Court must find specifically what these rites and ceremonies are and whether they were performed. The learned Additional District Judge did not at all consider the question of performance of the necessary rites and ceremonies and give a finding on those rites and ceremonies and their performance in the present case. On a consideration of the evidence on record, we find that the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove that the rites and ceremonies necessary to constitute a legal marriage were performed at the time of his alleged marriage with Shanti. In his evidence the appellant said nothing as to the performance of these rites and ceremonies. He only said that he was married to Shanti and that Ramkumar gave her away in marriage with the consent of her mother. Baldeo Prasad, a Pandit who deposed to have conducted the marriage, said in his evidence that 'Kanyadan' was done by Ramkumar and the marriage was performed according to the rites. He said nothing as to what rites and ceremonies were actually performed. The statements of other witnesses produced by the appellant also give no indication as to what rites and ceremonies are necessary in barber-community to which the parties belong and whether these rights and ceremonies were actually performed in the present cast'. This sort of evidence cannot be accepted as sufficient proof of the essential fact that the marriage of the parties was performed with the necessary rites and ceremonies. In our opinion, there is no evidence at all of a valid marriage, and on this ground alone the appellant's petition for restitution of conjugal rights must fail. 5. This sort of evidence cannot be accepted as sufficient proof of the essential fact that the marriage of the parties was performed with the necessary rites and ceremonies. In our opinion, there is no evidence at all of a valid marriage, and on this ground alone the appellant's petition for restitution of conjugal rights must fail. 5. Shri Sen, learned counsel for the respondent, drew our attention to the fact that the appellant had not filed with his application under section 9 a certified copy of an extract from the Hindu Marriage Register maintained under section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, regarding the fact of his marriage to Shanti The rules framed by this Court under sections.14 and 21 of the Act no doubt require that "every petition under the Act should be accompanied by a certified copy of extract from the Hindu Marriage Register maintained under section 8 of the Act." If there was a registration of the petitioner's marriage in the .Register maintained under section 8, the petitioner should have no doubt filed a certified copy of the relevant extract from the Register. But the omission to file the extract or even the omission to register the manage under section 8 cannot lead to the conclusion that there was no valid marriage. The opening words of section 8 (1) themselves show that the registration of Hindu marriages is only for the purpose of facilitating the proof of marriages. Again, sub-section (5) provide, that the validity of any Hindu marriage shall in no way be affected by the omission to make its entry in the Hindu Marriage Register. 6. For the foregoing reasons the decision of the learned Additional District Judge, Satna, rejecting the appellant' petition under section 9 of the Act is upheld and this appeal is dismissed with costs of the respondent No.1. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 50.