JUDGMENT Tej Shanker, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the wife against Damodar Prasad Goyal respondent Under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act challenging the judgment and decree dated 4.8.93 passed by the District Judge, Shivpuri. 2. Admittedly the appellant was married to the respondent according to Hindu rites. The respondent moved a petition praying that the marriage be declared void. It was alleged that the defendant i.e. wife was not a female and this fact was suppressed. She had no female organs and she had also no uterus. After the marriage when he wanted to have sexual intercourse he found that the defendant had no female organs. Hence the marriage relations could not be performed. She was got treated by Gynaecologist Dr. Wagh, who found that she had congenital absence of vagina and no uterus and cervix felt. The allegations were denied by the present appellant. She alleged that the petitioner (Present respondent) had illicit connection with another lady. He was living with her. She was being ill-treated. The allegations made were concocted. She had been living as a wife from 1979 and no complaint was ever made. The petitioner was estopped. It was not possible that a male Doctor would medically examine a lady. No medical examination had taken place as claimed. The petitioner had married Premkumari second time and he had suppressed this fact. The learned Trial Court after considering the entire material and hearing parties, allowed the petition and declared the marriage as nullity. Hence this appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Court below has relied on medical evidence consisting of Dr. Wagh and his medical report. It has committed an error in relying upon it because Pushpa had been examined has not been proved. She denied on oath that she was never examined by Dr. Wagh. In any case, he also urged that the Doctor had said that it was curable and as such no decree for annulment could be passed. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent urged that the contention of the appellant is not correct. It was Pushpa who had been examined by Dr. Wagh and it has been said by Dr. Wagh himself. The petitioner had said that he had taken Pushpa to Dr. Wagh where she was treated. The learned Counsel also referred to order sheet dated 23.9.92. Learned Counsel for the respondent urged that the contention of the appellant is not correct. It was Pushpa who had been examined by Dr. Wagh and it has been said by Dr. Wagh himself. The petitioner had said that he had taken Pushpa to Dr. Wagh where she was treated. The learned Counsel also referred to order sheet dated 23.9.92. It is apparent from this order sheet that it was desired that Pushpa be got examined by some lady Doctor but the prayer was opposed by her learned Counsel who said before the Court that Pushpa had been examined by Dr. Wagh and she could not be directed to be examined again and again. Learned Counsel urged that it is now not open to the ap pellant to say that Dr. Wagh did not examine her. He also drew my attention to the cross-examination made by the petitioner. The appellant never appeared and was never ready for her medical examination because she was afraid that if it was done the truth will come out in support of petitioner-respondent. 5. The main point for consideration in the case is as to whether the present appellant was not a female as claimed by the petitioner-respondent. Initial burden lay on the petitioner-respondent and in order to discharge this burden he examined Dr. Wagh who was Professor of Gynaecology in the G.R. Medical College, Gwalior, till 1979 and was practising privately thereafter. The learned Court below discussed the entire evidence on record in greater detail alongwith legal books in this connection. The only question raised before me was submitted that Dr. Wagh medically examined appellant Pushpa. This contention falls on the ground if we peruse the order sheet dated 23.9.92. It clearly shows that the learned Counsel for non-petitioner-appellant had stated that she had been medically examined by Dr. Wagh and she could not be directed to be examined again and again. When his attention was drawn to this order-sheet he tried to contend that it was the statement of the learned Counsel and not of the party and as such the party cannot be said to be bound by it. I respectfully do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel. A statement made before the Court by a Counsel on behalf of a party has to be taken to be made under the instructions of the party. I respectfully do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel. A statement made before the Court by a Counsel on behalf of a party has to be taken to be made under the instructions of the party. The party is, therefore, bound by the statement made by the Counsel. In this view of the matter it is not open for the learned Counsel to contend that the appellant was not medically examined by Dr. Wagh. Apart from it I may mention that the appellant was never prepared to get herself medically examined and she also specifically stated on oath in Court. In para 6 of her statement she deposed Aaj bhi main apni janch karane ko taiyar nahin hun". It, therefore, clearly goes to show that she was not prepared to get herself medically examined. In face of her conduct as well as the aforesaid statement of the learned Counsel it cannot be said that she was not medically examined by Dr. Wagh. The petitioner-respondent has stated on oath that she had taken her for medical examination and had consulted Dr. Wagh. The fact that Dr. Wagh examined Pushpa is apparent from the statement of Dr. Wagh himself. There was also a prescription on record which has also been proved. Dr. Wagh stated that he had opined for surgery but she did not appear. In this way I do not agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant and conclude that it was Pushpa who was medically examined by Dr. Wagh. Nothing has been argued with regard to the opinion given by Dr. Wagh. The learned Trial Court after considering the entire material on record and legal books came to the conclusion that the appellant was not a female and she was imponent at the time of marriage and she continued as such. In this view of the matter, the indings arrived at by the learned Court below do not call for any interference. 6. No other point has been argued. 7. Learned Counsel made a deponent attempt to argue about maintenance but there is nothing in this regard in the pleadings nor it was ever pressed before the Trial Court. It cannot, therefore, be pressed for the first time by the appellant m appeal. In this view, it is, therefore, rejected. 8. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.