JUDGMENT 1. Instant revision impugns the order dated April 7, 1998 of the learned Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu whereby charge under section 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code has been framed against the accused petitioner. 2. Mr. S.S. Naruka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed that from the FIR it is evident that the marriage of the deceased Suni @ Sunina had taken place with petition Zamil some 17-18 years-back and as such provisions enumerated under Sections 304 B and 498A IPC are not attracted and no case under these sections, is exfacie established. Reliance was placed on Gurditta Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1992 Cr.L.J. 309) , Bhagwan Sahai v. Raju and others (1996 (1) WLC (Raj.) 139) and Jai Ram v. State of Rajasthan (RLW 1994 (2) 549) . 3. On the other hand Mr. M.L. Goyal, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order and contended that prima-facie case under sections 304B and 498A IPC made out from the material on record. 4. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully perused the impugned order and case law cited before me. 5. A look at the FIR demonstrates that though marriage of Suni @ Sunina had taken place with the petitioner some 17-18 years back but 'Muklava' ceremony was performed in the year 1996 when Suni @ Sunina had attained 19 years of age. After Muklava ceremony she started residing with the petitioner as his wife and soon before the death she was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry. 6. It is well settled that in order to draw the presumption as to 'dowry death' the prosecution must establish that (i) the death of the deceased had taken place within seven years of her marriage (ii) that she had met with an unnatural death either due to any burns or bodily injury or under abnormal circumstances and '(iii) that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative for or in connection with any demand of dowry. 7. I am of the considered view that in the instant case seven years are Jo be counted from the date of Muklava ceremony. 7. I am of the considered view that in the instant case seven years are Jo be counted from the date of Muklava ceremony. Customary marriage performed by the parents of Suni & Sunina when she was a minor child was only the gateway through which Suni @ Sunina and the petitioner Zamil entered the married state. 'Marriage' is the union of opposite sexes, and sexual intercourse is the distinguishing feature of the union. Therefore 'marriage' is deemed to be constituted only when the petitioner Zamil and Suni @ Sunina corisumated the marriage after Muklava ceremony. 8. I am unable to pursuade myself with the submissions canvassed by Mr. Naruka learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The authorities cited by him are distinguishable and of no help to the petitioner. The charges under section 304B and 498A IPC are prima-facie established against the accused petitioner. 9. Resultantly, the revision stands dismissed. *******