JUDGMENT K.L. Issrani, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 30-7-1988 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sehore, in Civil Suit No. 5-A of 1986. 2. A suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife appellant No. 1 Smt. Gokulbai. The other appellants were also joined as defendants. 3. The case of the respondent is that he married appellant No. 1 Smt. Gokulbai in the Natra form of marriage about 7 years before the date of filing of the suit. He had paid Rs. 4000/- and given eight ornaments for the same to the appellants 2 and 3. The marriage was consumated and one son was also born out of the wedlock. The appellant No. 1 resided with the respondent for some years. But on account of search warrant got issued by the appellants 2 and 3 from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ashta, the custody of the appellant No. 1 was handed over to the appellants 2 & 3 on 31-8-1985. Since then, she is residingwith her parents. 4. According to the respondent, though the treatment of the appellant No. 1 was not good with him, he had been tolerating the same and wants to keep her as his wife but she is avoiding to live with him at the instigations of the appellants 2 and 3, as they want to re-marry her with some other person. According to the respondent, there is no just and reasonable excuse for the appellant No. 1 to live separate. He, therefore, filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 5. The appellants 2 and 3 denied that they received any amount in consideration of the Natra form of marriage. According to them, the, respondent gave cruel treatment to the appellant No. 1 and she had been suffering the same. On her information only, the appellants 2 and 3 got search warrant issued from the Court for her safety. The appellants submitted that the suit of the respondent is liable to be dismissed. 6. The trial Court has decreed the suit. On her information only, the appellants 2 and 3 got search warrant issued from the Court for her safety. The appellants submitted that the suit of the respondent is liable to be dismissed. 6. The trial Court has decreed the suit. The trial Court has held that there is no just or reasonable excuse for the appellant No. 1 to deny the matrimonial rights of the respondent. The trial Court further held that it is not proved that the respondent used to beat the appellant No. 1 or give threat to kill her etc. Against this judgment, the defendants/appellants have filed the present appeal. 7. In this appeal, the counsel for the appellants has pressed only one point that the Natra form of marriage is not legal and valid marriage and that the suit of the respondent is not maintainable and the trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit of the respondant. For this, the appellants have placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1966 MP 166 , Laxmansingh v. Kesharbai. 8. The submission of the counsel for the respondent is that the Natra form of marriage is a valid form of marriage. He has pointed out the pleadings of the parties in which the defendant/appellant No 1 has admitted her marriage in the Natra form. In paragraph 1 of the plaint which was filed on 15-1-1986, the respondent has pleaded that about 5 years before the marriage of the appellant No. 1 in Natra form was performed as per custom prevalent in their community and that the appellant No. 1 remained with him as his wife and they have got one son out of the wedlock He also pleaded that he paid Rs. 4,000/- and also gave 8 ornaments to the appellants 2 and 3 for his marriage with the appellant No. 1. In reply, the appellants land 2, in para 1 of their written statement have admitted the Natra form of marriage of the respondent with the appellant No. 1 and her living with the respondent as his wife. Rest of the facts including receiving payment of a consideration of Rs. 4,000/- etc. were denied. In reply, the appellants land 2, in para 1 of their written statement have admitted the Natra form of marriage of the respondent with the appellant No. 1 and her living with the respondent as his wife. Rest of the facts including receiving payment of a consideration of Rs. 4,000/- etc. were denied. To this, the reply of the counsel for the appellants is that in para 12 of the written statement, the appellant No. 1 has submitted that she is not legally wedded wife of the respondent and the marriage was not validly performed. 9. Here, it is to be noted that the parties have not examined anyone else on this point, except themselves and the appellant No. 1 Smt. Gokulbai in para 3 of her deposition has admitted that the respondent had given her 8 ornaments at the time of marriage But they were taken away after 2-3 years but she did not report this fact to anyone else. In para 1 of her deposition, she admitted that the respondent is her husband and one son has been born out of the wedlock. This reference is from the statement given by her in her petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, in her statement on merits as D.W.1, she has clearly admitted in paragraph 5 that she had married to respondent by performing 'Saptpadi'. According to me, this statement of the appellant No. 1 is complete answer to the point raised by the counsel for the appellants that the marriage performed was not a legal and valid marriage. 10. Burden of proof, to prove that the marriage was not legal and valid, was on the appellants, who have not examined any other witness regarding ceremonies performed at the time of marriage On the contrary, the appellant No. 1 herself has admitted that the marriage was performed in Saptpadi form. In the conception of Hindu marriage, rites and ceremonies performed at the time of marriage include Saptpadi; and the conditions of marriage are given under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act No defect of this form has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants. Except that, his only submission is that the Natra form of marriage is not valid. Except that, his only submission is that the Natra form of marriage is not valid. The ruling of the case of Laxmansingh v. Kesharbai(supra), cited by the appellants is not applicable to the facts of the present case where marriage is admitted in valid form. In that case, the wife had completely denied that she was married to the husband/appellant and the Court found that the marriage itself was not proved. Even the ceremonies performed were not proved. Because of that fact only, the Court was of the opinion that it was for the husband to establish the fact of valid marriage according to the caste custom before he could claim restitution of conjugal rights. But in the present case, it is not so. In that case also it is nowhere held that the Natra form of marriage is not a valid form of marriage. The Natra form of marriage is just like a Pat marriage as per systems prevalent in other communities like Gujoratis and others. 11. In the case of Rewaram v. Ramratan ( AIR 1963 MP 160 ), customs prevalent in Khati community have been discussed. Remarriage amongst Khatis has been held to be valid. The Court has also discussed the presumption in favour of the validity of the marriage. This case has not been considered in AIR 1966 M.P. 166 . As per Section 50 of the Evidence Act, when the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject is relevant fact. In this case, the appellant No. 1, being party to the marriage, her version is to be believed that the marriage was performed in Saptpadi form. This form of marriage can not be said to be illegal form of marriage. Moreover long cohabitation between a man and a woman raises a clear presumption of marriage, particularly when they lived as husband and wife and the children were born, and where the children were treated as the children of the man by community. The presumption no doubt is rebuttable one, but the evidence of rebutting that presumption must be clear and specific and ought to indicate that no valid marriage could have taken place. The presumption no doubt is rebuttable one, but the evidence of rebutting that presumption must be clear and specific and ought to indicate that no valid marriage could have taken place. In this case no such specific rebuttal is given rather the marriage in Saptpadi form has been admitted. So every presumption would be made in favour of the validity of marriage. Therefore, I hold that, the marriage of the parties is legal and valid. 12. No other point was raised by the appellants. The points raised have no force and this appeal has no merit. It is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.