JUDGMENT RAVI V.HOSMANI,J. - Challenging judgment dtd. 6/8/2021 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangaluru, in M.C.No.316/2020 this joint appeal is filed. 2. Brief facts as stated are that marriage of appellants was solemnised on 9/12/2005 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Kadri Temple Road, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada District, in accordance with Hindu rituals and customs. The marriage was registered by Registrar of Marriage, Mangaluru, on 25/1/2007. Thereafter they lived as husband and wife for 11 years. During their wedlock a male child named Zayn Ferrao was born on 8/10/2015. 3. However, due to misunderstanding and disagreement between them, they developed aversion towards each other. Despite efforts by parents, relatives and well-wishers to bring them together, there was no reconciliation and they were living separately for more than three years. Stating that their marriage had broken down irretrievably and there was no possibility of reunion, appellants filed M.C.No.316/2020 under Sec. 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, ('Act' for short) seeking for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. 4. In the petition, appellant no.2 stated that he had paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000.00 to appellant no.1 towards permanent alimony for her maintenance and their child. Receipt of said amount was admitted by appellant no.1. 5. In support of their petition, appellants got themselves examined as PW.1 and PW.2. Appellant no.2 in his evidence stated that he was a Christian by birth, while appellant no.1 was a Hindu. Prior to marriage, he converted to Hindu religion. Thereafter their marriage was solemnised as per Hindu customs and rituals. However, Family Court dismissed the petition on ground that no evidence was forthcoming to establish that appellant no.2 had converted to Hindu religion prior to marriage and therefore their marriage was invalid under Hindu Marriage Act. Aggrieved by same appellants are before this Court. 6. Smt. Haleema Ameen, learned counsel appearing for appellants submitted that appellant no.2 had converted to Hindu religion on 7/12/2005 by subscribing to Arya Samaj principles. It was submitted that joint affidavit declaring intention thus was sworn to and application for celebration of his marriage with appellant no.1 was submitted to Hon'ble Secretary, Arya Samaj, Mangaluru, on 25/11/2005. However, said documents were not placed before the Family Court. 7. Relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Perumal Nadar dead by LRs Vs. It was submitted that joint affidavit declaring intention thus was sworn to and application for celebration of his marriage with appellant no.1 was submitted to Hon'ble Secretary, Arya Samaj, Mangaluru, on 25/11/2005. However, said documents were not placed before the Family Court. 7. Relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Perumal Nadar dead by LRs Vs. Ponnu Swamy reported in (1970)1 SCC 605 , it was submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court had clarified law that no formal ceremony was required to effect conversion to Hindu religion 'except expression of a bonafide intention to convert to Hindu faith accompanied by conduct unequivocally expressing that intention'. Referring to said ratio, learned counsel submitted that his affidavit handed over to Arya Samaj, Mangaluru, contained his unequivocal expression and in view of solmenisation of marriage with appellant no.1 as per customs of Arya Samaj, there was due compliance and their marriage under provisions of the Act was valid. Therefore, Family Court was not justified in dismissing petition on ground of lack of evidence to establish conversion of appellant no.2, especially, when appellants had produced certificate of registration of their marriage under the Act. On above ground, learned counsel sought for allowing appeal and dissolve marriage between appellants. 8. Heard learned counsel and perused record. 9. Material facts namely, that appellant no.1 was a Hindu and appellant no.2 was a Christian by faith, prior to their marriage is not in dispute. They claim to be married as per customs of Arya Samaj on 9/12/2005. Registration of marriage under the Act on 25/1/2007 is not in dispute. Family Court dismissed their petition which assailed herein. Therefore, the only point that would arise for consideration is: "Whether Family Court was justified in dismissing the petition?" 10. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that to establish their marriage under the Act, they had produced certificate of registration of their marriage as Ex.P.1.But in view of decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Seema Vs. Ashwani Kumar reported in 2006 (2) SCC 578 , certificate of registration would only indicate marriage and by itself would not be proof of valid 'Hindu marriage'. A valid 'Hindu marriage' can be held to be solmenised only on compliance with requirements of Sec. 7 of the Act, which reads as under: "7. Ashwani Kumar reported in 2006 (2) SCC 578 , certificate of registration would only indicate marriage and by itself would not be proof of valid 'Hindu marriage'. A valid 'Hindu marriage' can be held to be solmenised only on compliance with requirements of Sec. 7 of the Act, which reads 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, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken." 11. Before 'Hindu marriage' could be solemnized under Sec. 7 of the Act, there should be compliance with Sec. 5, which deals with conditions. It reads as under: 5. Conditions for a Hindu Marriage.- A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely. - i) Neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage; ii) At the time of marriage, neither party.- (a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or (b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or (c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity; (iii) The bridegroom has completed the age of twenty-one years and the bride the age of eighteen years at the time of the marriage; (iv) The parties are not within the degree of Prohibited relationship, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two; (v) The parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two; 12. A reading of the above would make it clear that only if twin conditions are complied with under Sec. 5, a marriage could be a valid 'Hindu Marriage'. Firstly, two persons, who seek solemnization of marriage must be Hindus; it is not enough that one of them is a Hindu. Secondly, there must be compliance with conditions mentioned under Sec. 5 of the Act. Firstly, two persons, who seek solemnization of marriage must be Hindus; it is not enough that one of them is a Hindu. Secondly, there must be compliance with conditions mentioned under Sec. 5 of the Act. On fulfilling aforesaid conditions, 'Hindu Marriage' could be solemnized in accordance with Sec. 7 of the Act. 13. In the instant case, admittedly, appellant no.2 was a Christian prior to marriage. Therefore, without establishing valid conversion to Hindu religion prior to marriage, appellants' marriage cannot be held to be valid under the Act. And unless there was valid 'Hindu marriage', they cannot seek for dissolution of marriage under the provisions of the Act. 14. However, appellants have during course of this appeal, produced copy of affidavit containing declaration that appellant no.2 adopted Hindu religion and undertook to follow all Hindu customs and traditions. Copies of their application for marriage submitted to Secretary, Arya Samaj, Mangalore, are also produced. But these documents, were not produced before Family Court. Based on these documents, compliance with provisions of Ss. 5 and 7 of the Act is sought to be claimed. As these documents if established in accordance with law, would have a material bearing of this lis, their production is held necessary for proper disposal of matter. This would not dispense with requirement of establishing veracity of documents in accordance with law. In order to facilitate same, we deem it appropriate to set-aside impugned order and remand the matter back to Family Court reserving liberty to appellants to establish the fact of conversion of appellant no.2 to Hindu religion prior to marriage. Point for consideration is answered accordingly. In the result, we pass following: ORDER i]. Appeal is allowed in part. ii]. The order impugned dtd. 6/8/2021 passed in M.C.No.316/2020 is set aside. iii] The matter is restored to the file of the Family Court for re-consideration. The Family Court shall re-consider the matter in the light of the observations made herein above and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. iv] Additional documents now placed on by the appellants along with the memo shall be forwarded to the Family Court for adjudication.