Short Note : This appeal is by the husband-defendant under section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act against the decree for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9. 2. The decree is mainly challenged on the ground that the marriage of the appellant was not established on the evidence on record and that subsequent to the passing of the decree, there were circumstances to show that the respondent Urmilabai was leading an adulterous life and was living with one Rekhachand Marwani. She was, therefore, not entitled to the relief prayed and to the decree awarded in her favour. Held: From the evidence, it is patently clear that Urmilabai was living with the appellant for a period of about 12 years, She had started living in his house after the death of Ramcharan's wife. It appears that the caste people did not approve of the marriage and he had been outcasted. The fact that she was living in another village and had been brought to the village of Ramcharan is also proved. In such a situation the assertion of Urmilabai that she was married to the appellant should be accepted. The voters list also recorded Urmila as wife of Ramcharan. It is true that no evidence was led to prove the basis for recording Umrila as the wife of Ramcharan but it can not be denied that this is also a circumstance though not of a very high probative value to show that the people thought that she was the legally married wire or Ramcharan. This appears to be reflected in the voters list. In our opinion the factum of marriage of Urmilabai with appellant is clearly established on the above evidence. 3. There is no evidence worth the name for establishing that Urmilabai was leading an adulterous live and that the decree for restitution on that ground should be refused. In view of our finding that Urmilabai was married to the applicant she is entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under section I of the Hindu Marriage Act. Appeal dismissed.