Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the wife against the judgment and decree dated 4.1.1995 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, whereby the petition filed by the husband seeking the declaration about the marriage between the parties as a nullity was allowed and the marriage was declared null and void. 2. The facts in brief are that Harish Kumar husband had filed a petition under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) against his wife Smt. Santesh Kumari as respondent No. 1, and one Subhash as respondent No. 2 seeking a decree for declaring the marriage between them as a nullity. In the said petition, it was alleged by the husband that the marriage was solemnised on 28.1.1993 and that after the marriage, they lived together as husband and wife and cohabited but no child was born out of this wedlock. It was alleged that on the date of solemnisation of the said marriage, Smt. Santosh Kumari (wife) had a living spouse, inasmuch as respondent No. 2 Subhash was still alive and the marriage between them had not been dissolved in any manner and this fact was admitted by her in the civil suit decided by the Civil Court on 12.3.1990. It was alleged that in this way Smt. Santosh Kumari (wife) had intentionally and malafidely played fraud with him, (Harish Kumar) as these facts were not disclosed to him that she was already married with Sub-hash and on the other hand, it was disclosed that she was unmarried. It was alleged that after about a week of the marriage, Smt. Santosh Kumari started pressing him (Parish Kumar) to leave his father and village Talwara Khurd and settle permanently at Hisar and to start some work at Hisar. When he showed his inability to do so as his mother was already dead and there was no one to look after his father, she felt annoyed and went to her parents house at Hisar, three time in a month and took away with her all the gold ornaments. It was alleged that when he went to bring her back from Hisar on 28.2.1993, she flatly refused to accompany him and to reside with him. It was alleged that when he went to bring her back from Hisar on 28.2.1993, she flatly refused to accompany him and to reside with him. It was alleged that he convened panchayats two or three times to bring her back but of no effect and in the panchayat which was finally convened on 30.10.1993, it was disclosed that she was already married with Subhash and a suit between them in the Civil Court was pending at Hisar whereupon he went to the Court and found that the said marriage was solemnised on 22.11.1989 and the same was still intact and a Civil Court decree dated 12.3.1990 was passed in this regard. It was alleged that in this view of the matter, the marriage between the parties was liable to be declared as null and void by passing a decree of nullity. It was alleged that he came to know about the previous marriage only on 30.10.1993 and on 2.11.1993 and as such the petition was being filed without any delay. 3. The said petition was contested by Smt. Santosh Kumari (wife) by filing the written statement, alleging therein that at the time when she was pregnant, she was turned out of the house and a male child was born on 2.2.1994. It was alleged that Subhash was married with one Reeta and that she (Santosh Kumari) was a minor on 12.3.1990 and was a student of 10th class and her date of birth was 28.2.1974. It was alleged that she never signed any plaint or Vakalatnama and had engaged no counsel to file the alleged civil suit and various documents regarding the said suit were forged by Subhash. It was alleged that she was never married to Subhash and that all these facts were in the knowledge of Harish Kumar at the time of the marriage on 28.1.1993. It was alleged that at the time when she came to know about the Civil Court decree dated 12.3.1990, she had challenged the same being null and void. It was alleged that she was not having any knowledge about the fraudulent decree at the time of her marriage with Harish Kumar and that in fact, she was unmarried on 28.1.1993. It was further alleged that she had not left her matrimonial home of her own but she was turned out of the house when she was pregnant. It was alleged that she was not having any knowledge about the fraudulent decree at the time of her marriage with Harish Kumar and that in fact, she was unmarried on 28.1.1993. It was further alleged that she had not left her matrimonial home of her own but she was turned out of the house when she was pregnant. It was also denied that she had taken away dowry articles and on the other hand, it was alleged that in fact, the dowry articles were still in possession of her husband (Harish Kumar), It was denied that any Panchayat was ever held. On the other hand, it was alleged that Harish Kumar had not allowed her and the child to come to village Talwara Khurd. It was further alleged that since she was unmarried at the time of her marriage with Harish Kumar, the present petition under Section 11 of the Act was not maintainable. 4. Harish Kumar petitioner filed replication. Various issues were framed. Both the sides led evidence. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned Additional District Judge, allowed the petition filed by Harish Kumar (Husband) and passed a decree declaring his marriage with Smt. Santosh Kumari as null and void, vide judgment and decree dated 4.1.1995. It is against this judgment and decree of the Trial Court that Smt. Santosh Kumari filed the present appeal in this Court. 5. At the time of arguments, no one came present on behalf of Harish Kumar respondent inspite of the fact that for the earlier date, he had been actually served but no one had put in appearance on his behalf and even for subsequent dates notices by registered post had been sent to him. 6. I have heard the learned for the appellant and have gone through the record carefully. 7. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant (wife) submitted before me that as per his instructions, the parties i.e. Smt. Santosh Kumari and Harish Kumar are living together as husband and wife even after the passing of the aforesaid decree dated 4.1.1995 declaring the marriage between them as a nullity. However, this fact cannot be got confirmed from the other side as no one has put in appearance on behalf of Harish Kumar (Husband). 8. However, this fact cannot be got confirmed from the other side as no one has put in appearance on behalf of Harish Kumar (Husband). 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant wife while challenging the finding of the learned Additional District Judge on issue No. 1 submitted before me that in fact, there was no evidence on record to prove that the appellant Smt. Santosh Kumar had a living spouse at the time of her marriage with Harish Kumar and as such her marriage with Harish Kumar, could not be declared as nullity. It has been submitted that there was not proof on the record to show that any marriage between Smt. Santosh Kumari and Subhash had taken place according to Hindu law or otherwise nor there is any evidence to show that any religious ceremony was preformed in this regard. It has further been submitted that merely on the basis of Civil Court decree dated 12.3.1990, it could not be said that Smt. Santosh Kumari was married to Subhash, especially when neither the plaint allegedly filed by her in the Civil Court was put to her nor there is any other evidence to show that in fact, she had filed the said suit. It has further been submitted that in any case, she was a minor at the time of filing of the earlier suit and the said suit having been filed by her as a minor without guardian/next friend, it could not be said that there was any valid plaint or a valid decree of the Civil Court. 9. There is considerable force in these submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. From the matric certificate copy Exhibit R1, it would be clear that the date of birth of Smt. Santosh Kumari was 28.2.1974. Exhibit P1 is the copy of the plaint in the previous suit allegedly filed by Smt. Santosh Kumar against Subhash. The same was filed on 2.3.1990. Thus, it would be clear that at the time of filing of the said suit Smt. Santosh Kumar was a minor, inasmuch as, she was just 16 years old at the relevant time (date of birth 28.2.1974. Suit filed on 2.3.1990). A perusal of the said plaint, copy Exhibit P1 would show that it was allegedly filed by Smt. Santosh Kumari without the next friend and guardian. Suit filed on 2.3.1990). A perusal of the said plaint, copy Exhibit P1 would show that it was allegedly filed by Smt. Santosh Kumari without the next friend and guardian. Even though PW2 Shri H.S. Mehta, Advocate had deposed that he had filed the suit on behalf of Smt. Santosh Kumari at her asking and that he knew her personally, yet in my opinion, the statement of PW2 Shri H.S. Mehta Advocate cannot be accepted at its face value, especially when PW2 Shri H.S. Mehta, Advocate had not identified Smt. Santosh Kumari in the Court to say that she was the same lady who had come to him and had signed the plaint in the previous suit. Furthermore, when Smt. Santosh Kumari appeared in the witness box as RW1, she categorically stated that she did not know Subhash and had not filed any suit against him in March, 1990 and had not engaged any counsel nor had signed any plaint or Vakalatnama and that the Civil Court decree dated 12.3.1990 was false and bogus and that she had already challenged the legality of the said decree. The original plaint and the Vakalatnama were not put to her and it was not suggested to her that in fact, the original plaint and the Vakalatnama were bearing her signatures. The original file of the previous suit, which was summoned for the purpose of recording the statement of PW2 Shri H.S. Mehta. Advocate was returned after recording his statement and the said file was not in the Court at the time when the statement of Smt. Santosh Kumari was recorded and thus the original signatures on the plaint and the Vakalatnama in the previous suit were not even shown to Smt. Santosh Kumari. Merely because she had denied her signatures on the written statement, Vakalatnama and applications etc. in the present petition, in my opinion, would be no ground to hold that she had in fact, signed the plaint and the Vakalatnama in the previous suit allegedly filed by her against Subhash. 10. Merely because she had denied her signatures on the written statement, Vakalatnama and applications etc. in the present petition, in my opinion, would be no ground to hold that she had in fact, signed the plaint and the Vakalatnama in the previous suit allegedly filed by her against Subhash. 10. Furthermore, in my opinion, merely on the basis of the Civil Court judgment and decree Exhibits P5 and P6 in the previous suit, it could not be said that Smt. Santosh Kumari was the wife of Subhash, especially when there was nothing on the record to show that Smt. Santosh Kumari was ever married to Subhash or that any religious ceremony was ever performed. As referred to above, the filing of the previous suit by Smt. Santosh Kumari against Subhash is not proved on the record and in any case, she was a minor at the relevant time and as such on the basis of the said previous suit, it could not be said that a valid decree had been passed by the Civil Court. Merely, on the basis of the photographs Exhibits P8 and P9, in my opinion, it could not be said that Smt. Santosh Kumari was ever married to Subhash and any religious ceremony like Satpati etc. had been performed at the time of alleged marriage. There is also nothing on the record to show that they had lived together as husband and wife. Merely on the basis of the Civil Court decree referred to above, it could not be said that Smt. Santosh Kumari had married Subhash on 22.11.1989 or that Smt. Santosh Kumari had a living husband at the time of her marriage with Harish Kumar on 28.1.1993. The alleged admission regarding marriage with Subhash made in the plaint in the previous suit, in my opinion, would not be binding on Smt. Santosh Kumari firstly on the ground that it is not proved on the record that it was Smt. Santosh Kumari who had signed the said plaint and secondly as per the matric certificate Exhibit R1 Smt. Santosh Kumari was a minor at the relevant time and as such could not file the suit herself in the absence of any next friend/guardian. In my opinion, the learned Additional District Judge had erred in law in holding that on the basis of the plaint and the decree in the previous suit and the photographs Exhibit P8 and P9 Smt. Santosh Kumari was married to Subhash on 22.11.1989 or that on that account she had a living husband at the time of her marriage with Harish Kumar on 28.1.1993. 11. In view of my detailed discussion above, I reverse the finding of the Trial Court on Issue No. 1 and decide the same against Harish Kumar holding that he had failed to prove that Smt. Santosh Kumari had a living spouse, namely, Subhash on the date of her marriage with Harish Kumar on 28.1.1993. 12. In view of my finding on issue No. 1, I also reverse the finding of Trial Court on issue No. 3 and decide the same in favour of Smt. Santosh Kumari holding that Smt. Santosh Kumari having filed the Civil suit challenging the legality of the judgment and decree dated 12.3.1990, the said suit would be decided by the Civil Court in accordance with law. 13. In view of my finding on issue No. 1, I reverse the finding of the Trial Court on issue No. 4 as well and decide the same in favour of Smt. Santosh Kumari appellant holding that Smt. Santosh Kumari was not proved to be married to Subhash at the time of her marriage with Harish Kumar on 28.1.1993 and as such she was unmarried on 28.1.1993. I also reverse the finding of the Trial Court on issue No. 5 and decide the same in favour of Smt. Santosh Kumari holding that since, it was not proved on the record that Smt. Santosh Kumari was already married and having a living spouse at the time of her marriage with Harish Kumar on 28.1.1993, the provisions of Section 11 of the Act would not be applicable in this case. 14. In view of my detailed discussion above, the present appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree dated 4.1.1995 passed by the Trial Court are set aside and the petition for declaring the marriage as a nullity filed by Harish Kumar against Smt. Santosh Kumari is dismissed with no order as costs.