JUDGMENT Tej Shanker, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the wife Anitabai against the judgment and decree dated 7.10.93 passed by the Seventh Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior, whereby she dismissed her petition Under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. Briefly narrated the facts are that the petitioner claimed that she was married to the respondent according to the Hindu rites on 15.2.89 at Gwalior. After the marriage she went to her husband's house at Delhi and remained there for 3 days. Thereafter she returned to Gwalior and since then she has been living with her parents. After marriage when she went to her husband, she expressed her desire for consummation of marriage but respondent showed his unwilling- ness and the intercourse was not performed. He also said to her that she should not ask for intercourse. On 19.2.89 she returned to her parent's house at Gwalior. The intercourse was not possible due to impotency of respondent. The marriage has not been consummated. Respondent is also a disabled person. He also developed insanity at intervals. He was not fit. Hence she was unable to live with him. He also deserted her. She, therefore, prayed that the marriage be declared anulled Under Section 12(1)(a) and also a decree for divorce be passed. The allegations made by the petitioner were denied by the respondent. He alleged that it was wholly incorrect that he was impotent and the theory of impotency was fictitious and concocted. He was not a disabled person. The marriage was performed after full consideration. He did not desert her. Sexual intercourse had taken place with the petitioner. On the third day the petitioner did not permit intercourse on the pretext she had fever and was unwell. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions and the learned Trial Court after considering the entire material on record dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as there was no consummation due to impotency of the respondent it has to be annulled by a decree of nullity Under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Besides it no other argument has been advanced by the learned Counsel. 4. None appeared for the respondent and as such he could not be heard. 5. Besides it no other argument has been advanced by the learned Counsel. 4. None appeared for the respondent and as such he could not be heard. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon II (1986) DMC 65, Monia Khosla v. Amardeep Singh Khosla, II (1983) DMC 64, Indu Kumari Pathak v. S.K. Pathak, and AIR 1985 A.P. 1 , G. Venkataranamyana v. Kurupati Laxmi Devi, in support of his contention. A perusal of the provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act shows that a marriage is voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the grounds mentioned therein. The first ground mentioned is that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotency of the respondent. This is a ground on which the petitioner has come to Court. It was, therefore, the duty of the petitioner to have proved this as a fact. Unless facts are established the principles of law cannot be applied. Every principle of law applies to a particular set of facts. Thus, if the petitioner succeeds in establishing that the marriage could not be consummated owing to the impotency of the respondent, she can succeeds, but unless it is shown no decree could be passed in her favour. The learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the fact that the respondent was impotent or not was within the knowledge of the respondent himself. As such, he ought to have got himself examined medically and proved that he was impotent. I have considered this contention of the learned Counsel but I find myself unable to agree with it. No doubt, it is true that a person in whose knowledge the fact is should produce that evidence but there is nothing on record in the present case to show that any effort was made by the petitioner to adduce any evidence to show that the respondent was impotent. No application whatsoever was moved by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent to produce himself for medical examination. Had such application been moved and the respondent did not produce himself for medical examination the position would have been different. Not only this, the petitioner ought to have got examined herself medically in order to show that she was not subjected to intercourse but this too was not got done. Had such application been moved and the respondent did not produce himself for medical examination the position would have been different. Not only this, the petitioner ought to have got examined herself medically in order to show that she was not subjected to intercourse but this too was not got done. If we peruse the statement of the petitioner herself we find that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent is a disabled person. She appeared in witness box twice. It does not appear as to how her examination was recorded twice. However, if we peruse the statement recorded on 3.9.1991, we find that not a word has been stated by her about the impotency in her examination-in-chief. She simply stated that on going to her Sasural she came to know that Mohanlal was invalid as far as his limbs are concerned and he could not speak properly. He could not lift weight by his right hand. She wanted divorce. Nothing was stated by her as far as the plea of impotency is concerned. Again she appeared in the witness box on 23.9.1993 and she deposed for the first time that on the first night she met her husband and asked him whereupon he refused and she was made to get down from the cot. What is being done between the husband and wife was not done. The reason given by her is not impotence but something else. The quote real words " Vivah ke bad dono pati patni mai hota hai vah nahin hua kyonki mere pati ke hath pair kharab hain. Mere pati lachak kar chalte hain aur mchse bhi haklate hain." This statement can hardly be said to be sufficient to show that no consummation took place due to impotence. In para 9 of her statement she deposed that even if the Doctor opined that Mohanlal was fit to conduct intercourse she did not want to live with him. This clearly goes to show that it is not the alleged impotence which is the reason but the reason according to her is that her husband is handicapped and as such she did not want to live with him. Even if this statement is accepted as such this did not constitute a ground Under Section 12(1)(a). The respondent denied the allegation on oath that he was impotent. Even if this statement is accepted as such this did not constitute a ground Under Section 12(1)(a). The respondent denied the allegation on oath that he was impotent. In this view of the matter the evidence adduced by the petitioner can in no way go to show that the consummation could not take place due to impotence of the respondent. The authorities relief upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot help because every case depends upon its own facts. We need not go into those authorities for the simple reason that the petitioner has not been able to prove its case of the impotence of the respondent as said above. I, therefore, hold that the learned Trial Court correctly discarded petitioner's case and there is no scope for any interference in this appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.