JUDGMENT 1. - This is a wife's appeal from a judgment, dated March 15, 1978, by the leaned District Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur, in matrimonial suit No 4 of 1977 dismissing the suit and consequently refusing to annul or dissolve the marriage between the parties. 2. The facts as pleaded by the wife in her petition for a decree of nullity or in the alternative for dissolution of the marriage may be shortly stated here. The marriage between the parties was solemnised according to Hindu rites at Shahpura, District Jaipur, on November 2, 1972. The wife's age at the time of the marriage was 14. She stayed with the husband in the matrimonial home for two days during her first visit there immediately after marriage. There was no sexual intercourse between the parties during that period.The wife returned to her parents home and stayed there alone for few days. She went back to the matrimonial home and resided together with her husband for 4-5 days. She discovered during that period that the husband was insane before the marriage and continued to be so thereafter. He did not let her sleep throughout the first and second night of her second visit to the matrimonial home. She had to spend the two nights sitting on The floor. On the second night, he assaulted her and injured her with his nails. He tried to strangulate her. She came out of the bed-room and complained to her parents-in-law about his conduct. They did not help her. She sent for her father from Shahpura. He took her away to Shahpura. The husband was also taken to Shahpura so that he could he treated for insanity. It is alleged that he was examined by Dr. Brahm Swaroop at Shahpura and on his advice by a Specialist in the Mental Hospital at Jaipur. There was however, no improvement in his condition by their treatment. 3. Giving a specific instance of cruelty, the wife pleaded that the husband came to her parents house in April 1973, and made an attempt on her life with a knife. She escaped unhurt He then tried to commit suicide, it is alleged that, on hearing the noise a number of neighbours arrived there in her parents house and tried to control him. The matter was also reported to the Shahpura Police. She escaped unhurt He then tried to commit suicide, it is alleged that, on hearing the noise a number of neighbours arrived there in her parents house and tried to control him. The matter was also reported to the Shahpura Police. It is alleged that the police arrived there and dispossessed the husband of the knife with which he had tried to kill he and then he tried to commit suicide. 4. The wife also sought annulment of the marriage on the additional ground of fraud and her own minority. She pleaded that her father's consent to this marriage had been obtained by suppressing the fact that the husband was insane at the time of the marriage. She further pleaded that since her age at the time of marriage was 14, the marriage between the parties was liable to be annulled under section 5, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act). 5. The husband contested this petition and filed a written statement in answer to it. He denied that he was insane before, at or after the marriage. He pleaded that the wife was 18 and he himself was 27 at the time of the marriage. He assested that the marriage has been consummated and that he had had sexual intercourse with her many a time. He admitted that he had accompanied her and her father to Shahpura in April 1973. He also admitted that Dr. Brahm Swaroop of Shahpura and a doctor of the Mental Hospital, Jaipur, had examined him. He however, claimed that both the doctors had certified him to be mentally physically tit. He further pleaded that the petitioner's father had him examined by a Sexologist who certified that he was potent. He complained that the petitioner's father has adopted an unreasonable attitude and that it is he who is responsible for spoiling the relations bet the two spouses. 6. The learned District Judge took the parties to trial on the following issue: 1. Whether the husband was insane at the time of marriage. 2. Whether the husband has treated the wife with cruelty solemnisation of the marriage. 3. Whether the husband is guilty of fraud in suppressing insanity from the wife. 4. Whether the Petition for a decree of nullity was filed within prescribed period of limitation. 5. Relief 7. Whether the husband was insane at the time of marriage. 2. Whether the husband has treated the wife with cruelty solemnisation of the marriage. 3. Whether the husband is guilty of fraud in suppressing insanity from the wife. 4. Whether the Petition for a decree of nullity was filed within prescribed period of limitation. 5. Relief 7. By her judgment dated March 15, 1978, the learned District Judge recorded the following findings : (1) The wife has failed to prove that the husband was insane at the time of the marriage. (ii) The wife has failed to prove her allegation of cruelty against the husband. (iii) The petition is barred by limitation for it had been presented long after the expiry of the period of one year from the date on which according to the wife's own showing, she had discovered the alleged insanity of the husband. 8. It was on the basis of these findings that the learned Judge dismissed the wife's petition. The wife has appealed. 9. After hearing both sides and going through the evidence on record, I am of opinion that this appeal is wholly unsustainable. It will he recalled that the wife bad pleaded that the husband had been examined by Dr. Brahma Swaroop of the Shahpura hospital and a Specialist of the Mental Hospital at Jaipur for insanity. None of the said two doctors was examined as a witness by her.The oral evidence produced by her in support of the accusation against the husband in that behalf is wholly inadequate to prove such a serious accusation. She came on the stand and testified that the husband did not sleep and let her sleep daring the first two nights and that he had broken her bangles and given her a beating. A reference to her averments in the petition would however, show that her case at that time was that the husband had tried to strangulate her and had violently scratched her body with his nails. This variance between the pleadings and proof clearly shows that the wife has made false allegations of insanity and cruelty against the husband. 10. Turning now to the alleged incident of cruelty by the husband in the wife's parents' house in April 1973, it will be recalled that the wife had pleaded in the petition that he had tried to kill her with a knife and commit suicide. 10. Turning now to the alleged incident of cruelty by the husband in the wife's parents' house in April 1973, it will be recalled that the wife had pleaded in the petition that he had tried to kill her with a knife and commit suicide. She further pleaded that on hearing the noise a number of neighbours had turned up at father's house. A little later, the police also arrived there. It is significant to note that no evidence worth the name was produced to prove these allegations None of the neighbours who are alleged to hale witnessed the occurrence was called as a witness. S.I. Sarwan Singh and Constable Sri Narain who are said to have arrived in the wife's parents' house and seized the knife from the husband have not been produced in evidence. No attempt was made to prove the alleged report lodged with the police regarding this incident. 11. The wife's self-serving statement that the husband tried to kill her in her parents' house in April 1973 cannot possibly be believed. The only other witness who has testified about the said incident is the petitioner's brother namely, Gopal is obviously an Interested witness. No reliance can be placed on his evidence. 12. The husband appeared as his own witnesses and denied the allegation of cruelty and insanity made against him. 13. It will thus be seen that tie wife has failed to prove her allegation of cruelty and insanity made against the husband. The findings of the learned trial court in that behalf are therefore affirmed. 14. In view of the finding that the wife has failed to prove her allegations of cruelty and insanity against the husband, the husband cannot possibly be held guilty of any fraud by reason of the alleged suppression of insanity by him. 15. The wife's petition for nullity further deserves to he dismissed as barred by limitation. she admitted in the petition that she had discovered the husband's alleged insanity within 20 days of the marriage. The marriage was solemnised on November 21, 1972. She had made the so-called discovery in December 1972. The present petition could, therefore, he filed by her within a period of one year from the date of the said discovery. The petition was nowever filed in February 1977. The marriage was solemnised on November 21, 1972. She had made the so-called discovery in December 1972. The present petition could, therefore, he filed by her within a period of one year from the date of the said discovery. The petition was nowever filed in February 1977. Section 12(2 (a (i) of the Act labs down that no petition for nullity on the ground that the consent of the petitioner to the marriage was obtained by fraud can be filed more than one year after the fraud had been discovered. This petition which was presented long after the expiry of the said period deserves to be dismissed as barred by section 12(2) (a) (i) of the Act. 16. Mr. Keshote, learned counsel for the wife then made a half hearted attempt to argue that since the age of the wife at the time of the marriage was below 15, the marriage is void by reason of the provisions of section 5 of the Act. Section 5 inter alia lays down that the marriage may be solemnised between any two Hindus if the bridegroom has completed the age of 21 years and the bride has completed the age of 18 years at the time of the marriage. The wife has adduced evidence that she was born on October 1, 1957. Pw Joharilal who prepared the wife's horoscope has deposed that she was born on October 1, 1957. In the absence of evidence in rebuttal, one may conclude that the wife was borne on October 1, 1955 as claimed by her. 17. A reference to the provisions of sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act which deal with nullity of marriage and divorce, would show that no provision is made therein for declaring a marriage void on the ground that it was solemnised in contravention of the provisions of section 5(iii) of the Act. It is noteworthy that section 11 which deals with void marriages enacts that any marriage shall be null and void and may on a petition presented by either spouse be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any one of the conditions required in clauses 1, iv, v of section 5. Clause iii of section 5 is conspicuous by its omission from section 11 in the context of grant of declaration of nullity of the marriage. Clause iii of section 5 is conspicuous by its omission from section 11 in the context of grant of declaration of nullity of the marriage. It may, therefore, be safely concluded that the legislation has made no provision in the Act rendering void or even voidable a marriage solemnised in contravention of clause (iii) of section 5 of the Act. That being so, the wife is not entitled to any declaration that the marriage between the parties is void or voidable by reason of the contravention of clause (iii) of section 5 of the Act. 18. As a last resort, Mr. Keshote argued that the wife is entitled to a decree of dissolution of the marriage under clause (iv) of sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act which reads as under : "A wife may also present a petition for the dissolution of her marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground that her marriage (whether consummated or not) was solemnized before she attained the' age of fifteen years and she has repudiated the marriage after attaining the age of eighteen years." 19. It will be seen from the clause reproduced above that it would be available to a wife whose marriage had been solemnised before she had attained the age of 15 years. In the instant case the wife had, according to her own showing, attained the age of 15 years before her marriage. It will be recalled that she has produced evidence that she was born on October 1, 1957. The marriage was solemnised on November 21, 1972. She was thus 15 years one month and 21 days old at the time of the marriage. 20. Even otherwise, there is no averment whatsoever in the petition that the wife had ever repudiated this marriage before attaining the age of 18 years. A reference to paragraph 15 of the petition would show that instead of repudiating the marriage, she had been making efforts until 6 months before the institution of the petition for reinstatement in the matrimonial home, such a plea militates against the plea of repudiation sought to be raised in the course of arguments before this Court. 21. For all these reasons, there is no force in this appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed. *******