Judgment ( 1. ) THESE two revisions have arisen from the common order passed by III Civil Judge Class-I, East Nimar, Khandwa whereby two applications, one (Succession Case No. 9/2001) filed by Smt. Suman Bai alleging her to be the widow of Peter Joseph and another application No. 8/2001 filed by Smt. Margret have been disposed on 12-10-2001. The Trial Court allowed the application of Smt. Suman Bai and passed the order granting succession certificate to her while the application filed by Smt. Margret for obtaining succession certificate was dismissed. Since there were two applications, though they were disposed of by the common order, Smt. Margret preferred two appeals which were numbered as Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4/2001 and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5/2001. The Appellate Court by a common order decided both the appeals and dismissed them. In this manner, these two revision petitions have been preferred. ( 2. ) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. According to respondent Smt. Suman Bai, she was residing with her husband Peter for last 16 years. She was married to Peter in accordance with the rites in Roman Catholic Church of Nepa Nagar. The marriage was solemnized by Priest Kevoshar according to the Christian rites. On 18-12-1997 said Peter died. Since she is the sole successor, she is entitled for all immovable and movable property left by her husband. The deceased was serving on the post of Fitter in the Maintenance Department of Nepa Limited, on account of his death, she is entitled to obtain the amount of provident fund, gratuity etc. from the Department. The deceased was also having a Saving Bank Account No. 6781 in the Indian Stale Bank of India, Nepa Nagar Branch having a sum of Rs. 1,51,467. 40 deposited in it and as per respondent, she is entitled to obtain this amount. The respondent thus submitted an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act (in short the Act) for obtaining succession certificate to the tune of Rs. 4,49,467/ -. ( 3. ) THE petitioners, by filing objections, objected for the grant of Succession Certificate, they also filed a separate application under Section 372 of the Act for the grant of certificate in their favour. The Court below allowed the application of respondent-Suman Bai and dismissed the application filed by petitioners. ( 4. ) THE appeals preferred by Smt. Margret were also dismissed. The Court below allowed the application of respondent-Suman Bai and dismissed the application filed by petitioners. ( 4. ) THE appeals preferred by Smt. Margret were also dismissed. Hence these revisions. ( 5. ) IT has been contended by Shri Pranay Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioners that petitioners raised specific objection that respondent is not legally wedded wife of the deceased and, therefore, the Courts below erred in law in allowing the application filed under Section 372 of the Act by respondent and thereby allowed to grant succession certificate to her. Shri Verma, learned Counsel by inviting my attention to Sections 4 and 5 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 (in short act of 1872) has contended that the marriage of Christian is required to be solemnized in accordance with the provisions of Act of 1872, and if any marriage is solemnized otherwise than in accordance with such provisions of the Act of 1872, it shall be void. According to the learned Counsel since Priest has not been examined by the respondent, therefore, the marriage has not been proved and hence the orders passed by the Courts below holding that respondent was the legally married wife of the deceased, is contrary to the law. ( 6. ) SHRI R. K. Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned order. ( 7. ) ON going through the evidence of Suman Bai, it is gathered that she was married to Peter in the year 1982 in a Church of Matapura, Nepanagar. Thereafter both of them lived as husband and wife. Nand Kishore Kamle (P. W. 2) and Swapn Datta (P. W. 3) were examined by the respondent who have corroborated the evidence of respondent that she was married to deceased Peter in a Church and Priest Kevoshar performed the marriage ceremony. Respondent-Suman Bai submitted ration card (Ex. A-1) and Ex. A-2 is the identity card issued by Election Commission of India. In both these documents, respondent has been shown as the wife of Peter. The petitioners filed Exs. D-1 and D-2 in order to show that the marriage was not solemnized as there is no entry in the marriage register. These two documents have been proved by petitioners by examining one Poly Dimango. This witness admitted that he is not the authorized person to bring this marriage register. The petitioners filed Exs. D-1 and D-2 in order to show that the marriage was not solemnized as there is no entry in the marriage register. These two documents have been proved by petitioners by examining one Poly Dimango. This witness admitted that he is not the authorized person to bring this marriage register. According to him, the marriage register is being kept in possession of the Priest and it appears that Priest K. V. Mathew is the person in whose custody the marriage register is being kept. He has further admitted that the marriage register can not be taken away by any other person. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court came to hold that since the marriage register has not been placed on record by a proper and authorized person, this document can not be relied. ( 8. ) ON bare perusal of Section 4 of the Act of 1872, it is revealed that every marriage between persons, one or both of whom is/are a Christian or Christians, shall be solemnized in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1872. This section further says that, if any such marriage solemnzied otherwise than in accordance with such provisions, it shall be void. Section 5 of the Act of 1872 speaks about persons by whom marriages may be solemnized. On bare reading of this section, it is perceivable that this section only provides certain classes of persons who can solemnize marriage between Indian Christians, but in the Act nowhere it is provided that the marriage amongst the Indian Christians can be proved only in the manner as stated in Section 5 of the Act of 1872. The Indian Evidence Act also does not lay down any special procedure or mode of proof of a Christian Marriage and, therefore, if it is proved that the marriage was solemnized in a Church in accordance with the rites, it would be a valid marriage. In the present case, the evidence has been laid on behalf of the respondent that her marriage was solemnized in Church and Kevoshar was the Priest who performed the marriage ceremony according to the rites and custom. In the present case, the evidence has been laid on behalf of the respondent that her marriage was solemnized in Church and Kevoshar was the Priest who performed the marriage ceremony according to the rites and custom. Whether Suman was married to Peter is a pure question of fact and learned Courts below has recorded a categorical finding after appreciation of the evidence that respondent Suman was married to Peter according to the rites, ceremony and customs of Christians. Thus, even if the Priest was not examined by respondent, would in itself is no ground to hold that she was not a legally married wife of the deceased Peter. The learned Courts below have also noted down subsequent conduct of the respondent and held that she and Peter were living as husband and wife for decades and, therefore, there is presumption of valid marriage and it will be presumed that they are legally wedded husband and wife. It be seen that an important document in that regard is the certificate (Ex. A-2) issued by Election Commissioner in which respondent Suman has been shown to be the wife of deceased Peter. In the ration card (Ex. A-1) also the respondent has been shown to be the wife of Peter. ( 9. ) IT has also been contended by Shri Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioners that the respondent during the life time of her first husband had married to Peter and, therefore, her marriage can not be said to be legal marriage. This aspect was also dealt by learned Courts below and after holding enquiry gave a finding in negative. The petitioners also did not adduce any evidence in that regard. Indeed, the Trial Court gave elaborate reasons dealing each and every point and by discussing every document and the evidence placed on record which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court. The findings are pure finding of facts and are not required to be assailed in revision. ( 10. ) IN the result, both revisions are found to be devoid of any substance and are dismissed. However, parties are directed to bear their own costs.