JUDGMENT 1. - This civil miscellaneous appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is directed against the decree of the District Judge, Jhunjhunu, dated February 11, 1971, in proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent Guman Singh moved an application against the appellant under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights. It was alleged in the application that the marriage between the parties was solemnized according to the Hindu rites on January 19, 1965, at village Surjanpura. After the marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife till Posh Samwat Year 2022. The appellant then went to her father's house at Surjanpura. The respondent further alleged that on Mah sud 9, Samwat year 2022, Shanker Singh of village Randhana forcibly took away the appellant from Surjanpura and since that date, the appellant has been living with Shanker Singh. This application was contested by the appellant on the ground that no marriage took place between the parties. She further alleged that she was the wife of Shanker Singh of village Randhana. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court:- " 1- D;k Jherh lqUnj dqaoj xqekuflag dh fookfgr iUrh gS ,oa mudk fookg fgUnq /keZ ds vuqlkj gqvk\ 2- D;k izkFkhZ & nkEiR; vf/dkjksa ds izR;fLFkkiu dh fMdzh ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- nknjlh D;k gksxh\ " The learned District Judge, on consideration of the evidence led by the parties, held in favour of the respondent and granted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant. It is in these circumstances that the present appeal has been filed by the wife Sunder Kaur. 4. The sole question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the marriage between the parties was solemnized on January 19, 1965 at Surjanpura. Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with performance of ceremonies for a Hindu marriage. It runs as under:- "7. Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage.-(1) a Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with performance of ceremonies for a Hindu marriage. It runs as under:- "7. Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage.-(1) a Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. (2) Where such rites and ceremonies include the Saptapadi (that is, taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly belong the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken." It is thus abundantly clear that this section does not lay down any special or particular kind or form of ceremonies to be compulsorily observed in all Hindu marriage. In fact, the form of marriage prescribed by "shastras" is subject to modification by custom or usage. The expression "customary rites and ceremonies" means such "shastric" ceremonies' which the race or community, to which the parties belong, is customarily following. Sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act makes it clear that when such rites and ceremonies include the ceremony of 'saptapedi", the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. If it is proved in a given case that "saptapadi" is not a part of the customary rite, it need not be performed. Since a Hindu marriage is sacrament, the performance of the customary ceremony must be observed in order to make a marriage valid. In the instant case, no evidence has been adduced to show if there was any particular customary ceremony prevailing in the family of the parties. However, evidence had been adduced to show if there was any particular customary ceremony prevailing in the family of the parties. However, evidence had been led on both sides on the point as to what ceremonies had been performed at the marriage. According to the appellant, her marriage was solemnized with Shanker Singh and not with respondent Guman Singh. DW.5 Bhagirathmal has mentioned about the ceremonies which were observed at the time of the marriage of the appellant with Shanker Singh. He has deposed that the marriage was performed according to the Hindu rites. He further goes on saying that the bride and bridegroom took four rounds and that Re. 1/- was given as 'kanyadaan', it follows from the statement of DW.5 Bhagirath that the ceremony of "saptapadi" was not essential. According to him, the essential ceremonies of marriage were "chatuspadi" and "kanyadaan". He further goes on saying that the bride and bridegroom took four rounds and that Re. 1/- was given as 'kanyadaan', it follows from the statement of DW.5 Bhagirath that the ceremony of "saptapadi" was not essential. According to him, the essential ceremonies of marriage were "chatuspadi" and "kanyadaan". The respondent's evidence is also to the same effect. PW.1 to PW.5 have deposed that the marriage was solemnized between the parties by observing ceremonies of "chatuspadi" and "kanyadaan". There is thus no doubt that in the community of the parties a marriage performed with the ceremonies of "chatuspadi" and "kanyadaan" is valid and "saptapadi" ceremony was not necessary for a valid marriage. 5. The respondent has appeared in the witness box as PW.1. The relevant portion of his statement runs as under:- " esjh 'kknh lqUnj daoj ds lkFk la0 2021 ds iksg cfn 2 dks fgUnq /keZ ds jhfr fjokt ds eqrkfcd gqbZ FkhA rkjh[k eq>s ;kn ugha esjh ckjkr ekStk lqjtuiqjk ( rglhy lhdj ) esa xbZ Fkh eq0 lqanjdaoj Hkxokuflag dh yM+dh gSA 'kknh ds le; pacjh eaMh FkhA ekaMk :ik Fkk o dU;knku gqok FkkA Hkxokuflag us dU;knku fd;k FkkA ml oDr ;gh jLesa gqbZ FkhA C;kg ekStk lqjtiqjk ds czkgkzk.k us djk;k FkkA 4 Qsjs iM+s FksA 'kknh ds ckn eq0 lqanjdaoj ckjkr ds lkFk esjs ?kj vkbZ Fkh og 20 fnu Bgjh FkhA mlds ckn Hkh og 3&4 erZok esjs ?kj vkbZ FkhA og esjs ikl esjh iRuh ds :i esa jgh FkhA " PW.2 Bhagwan Singh, PW.3 Megh Singh, PW.4 Megh Singh and PW.5 Ram Singh have deposed that they were present at the time when the marriage between the parties was solemnized. They have fully corroborated the statement PW.1 Guman Singh in respect of the ceremonies performed at the time of marriage. According to them, the ceremonies of "chatuspadi" and "kanyadaan" were performed. The respondent has also produced the statement of the appellant dated February, 20, 1965 recorded by the Sub Divisional Msgistrate, Deedwana. It is marked as Ex.1. In this statement, the appellant has clearly stated that she was not married to Shanker Singh. The respondent has also produced affidavit of the appellant dated February 3, 1965, which is Ex.2 on the record. It is marked as Ex.1. In this statement, the appellant has clearly stated that she was not married to Shanker Singh. The respondent has also produced affidavit of the appellant dated February 3, 1965, which is Ex.2 on the record. In this affidavit, the appellant deposed on oath that her marriage was solemnized on January 19, 1965 with the respondent according to the Hindu rites asper wishes of her parents and relatives. The appellant, no doubt, in her statement as DW.1, disowned the statements Ex.1 and Ex.2, but both these statements stand proved from the statement of PW.10 Bhanwar Singh. The latter has deposed that both these statements were made by the appellant in his presence. The appellant, in her evidence, examined her rather Hazari Singh (DW.4), but it is significant to note that Hazari Singh does not say a word about the solemnization of marriage of the appellant either with Shanker Singh or with Guman Singh. On the other hand, he has deposed that he left village Surjanpura 17 or 18 years ago, leaving behind his children and his wife to the care of PW.2 Bhagwan Singh. This statement of DW.4 Hazari Singh impliedly corroborates the statement of PW.2 Bhagwan Singh, who has deposed that Mst. Nangi, who was admittedly the mother of the appellant, was his kept mistress (Paswan). In these circumstances of the case, it was natural for the appellant to described her father's name at Bhagwan Singh as well as Hazari Singh. It may be noted here that in Ex.1, she has described herself to be the daughter of Hazari Singh, whereas in Ex.2, she has described her father's name as Bhagwan Singh. The learned counsel for the appellant has laid considerable stress on the statement of the appellant, marked as Ex. A.1, recorded by the Additional District Magistrate, Nagaur, on January 9, 1966. In this statement the appellant deposed that she was married to Shanker Singh some 13 or 14 years ago. In the same statement, she narrated her age on the date of her statement to be 13 years. Later on, in the same statement, she deposed that at the time of her marriage, her age was 7 years. Ultimately, she had to admit that she possessed no idea about her age. The learned District Judge has not placed reliance on Ex. A1 and I think, rightly. Later on, in the same statement, she deposed that at the time of her marriage, her age was 7 years. Ultimately, she had to admit that she possessed no idea about her age. The learned District Judge has not placed reliance on Ex. A1 and I think, rightly. The appellant also examined DW.2 Shanker Singh, DW.3 Sanwa Singh, DW.4 Hazari Singh and DW.5 Bhagirath Mal besides herself. I have carefully gone through the statements of these witnesses, and in my opinion, none of them is convincing and trustworthy. The learned District Judge, in the circumstances, rightly disbelieved their testimony. The evidence produced by the respondent, specially the evidence of PW.1 to PW.5, is worthy of credit. These witnesses have fully established that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in their presence. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out to me certain discrepancies in the statements of PW.1 to PW.5 regarding the date of marriage, amount of "kanyadaan" etc. These discrepancies, in my opinion are minor ones and are bound to occur in truthful witnesses, after a lapse of considerably time. 6. The respondent has succeeded in proving that the appellant has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the respondent, her husband. The trial court, in the circumstances, rightly passed a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant. 7. There is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed. Since the respondent has not put in appearance, I leave the parties to bear their own cost in this appeal. *******