JUDGMENT V.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Raipur, on 9-7-2001 in Civil Suit No. 355-A/1996, decreeing the suit and declaring the marriage dated 4-7-1995 void. 2. On 4-7-1995 appellant No. 1 and respondent were married at Raipur in accordance with Hindu rites, rituals and customs and thereafter appellant No. 1 lived with her husband/respondent in her matrimonial home upto 16-9-1995. Since 17-9-1995 appellant is living in her parental home. 3. Respondent filed a suit under Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, "the Act") for declaring the marriage solemnized on 4-7-1995 void averting that the appellant No. 1 was not willing to marry the respondent and was suffering from mental disorder, a fraud has been played on him by suppressing these facts in order to have his consent for marriage, as also for divorce alleging that during pendency of the petition appellant No. 1 has made various false allegations against the respondent causing mental torture to him. Appellants in their reply denied the allegations and stated that marriage was solemnized with the consent of appellant No. 1 and after the marriage she lived with the respondent, where the marriage was consummated. In her matrimonial house on the demand of dowry she was subjected to cruelty. On the ground that respondent has to go abroad, appellant No. 1 was constrained to live in her parental home. Respondent left her with assurance to take her back after return from abroad, but did not take her back to matrimonial home, instead, sent a notice to her and filed a suit for declaration of marriage void and for dissolution of the marriage. 4. Learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence held that the appellant No. 1 is not suffering from any mental disease and no suppression of fact regarding her mental disease has been made, however, held that the parents of the appellant No. 1 have without consent of the appellant No. 1 got her married forcibly with the respondent. Therefore, the marriage is void and hence a decree under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, declaring the marriage dated 4-7-1995 void, has been passed. 5. Both the parties are heard and record of Lower Court perused. 6. Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, reads as under : "12. Voidable Marriage. Therefore, the marriage is void and hence a decree under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, declaring the marriage dated 4-7-1995 void, has been passed. 5. Both the parties are heard and record of Lower Court perused. 6. Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, reads as under : "12. Voidable Marriage. (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds namely : (c) that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner was required under Section 5 as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act, 1978 the consent of such guardian was obtained by force or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent." 7. It has been urged that the appellant No. 1 was not willing and had not given her consent for the marriage, this fact was suppressed from the respondent and by suppressing the said fact the consent of the respondent for marriage has been obtained. Therefore, the marriage is liable to be annulled by a decree of nullity. 8. For application of the above provision, it was necessary to determine that as to whether the appellant No. 1 by suppressing the fact, that she was not willing to marry, obtained the consent of respondent. But, the learned Court below did not determine that question and, instead determined that the appellant was married to respondent by force against her will by her parents. 9. Girish Chandel (AW. 1) stated that after marriage appellant No. 1 came to live in her matrimonial home, but she was not cooperating and always used to keep herself aloof and on being asked, she used to say that she was married against her will with respondent, she feels uneasy, therefore, she would commit suicide. He tried to keep her happy. She was taken by him for roaming, but the appellant No. 1 always expressed that she did not like to live with him and would commit suicide. On 16-9-1995, in presence of her father and maternal uncle she again told that her marriage has been performed against her will, she is not willing to live in her matrimonial home and will commit suicide. On 16-9-1995, in presence of her father and maternal uncle she again told that her marriage has been performed against her will, she is not willing to live in her matrimonial home and will commit suicide. Therefore, she was taken back by her father on 17-9-1995 from her matrimonial home. 10. M.L. Chandel (A.W. 2) in his statement deposed that after marriage when the appellant No. 1 came to live in her matrimonial house, she was keeping mum and always remained sleeping in her room. On 17-9-1995 respondent, who is his son unveiled that the appellant No. 1 was married with him against her will, therefore, her father was called and in presence of her father and maternal uncle, she admitted that her parents had got the marriage performed against her consent therefore, she feels uneasy and will commit suicide. 11. The respondent in order to substantiate the fact that the appellant No. 1 was married to him against her will, has adduced the aforementioned evidence regarding circumstances which arose after the marriage. Respondent has not quoted even a single instance or has examined any witness to unveil any circumstance by which it may be inferred that her marriage was performed without her consent. Therefore, if after marriage appellant No. 1 did not permit the respondent to cohabit with him or after marriage she kept mum or did not co-operate with respondent, from all that it can not be presumed that she was unwilling to marry with the respondent. 12. Smt. Smita Patel (NAW 1) who is appellant No. 1 has deposed in her statement that she was married to respondent on 4-7-1995. Before her marriage other rituals were performed. The marriage was performed with her consent. In her cross-examination also she has stated that she got herself married with respondent with her consent and denied all the suggestions regarding her unwillingness and suggestion regarding her admission before her father and maternal uncle to the effect that the marriage has been performed against her will, she has also explained as to why the name of her husband has not been written in her service or educational record. She has also denied the fact that she was not co-operating or no cohabitation took place. 13. She has also denied the fact that she was not co-operating or no cohabitation took place. 13. Gorelal Akhilesh (NAW 2) the father of the appellant No. 1 deposed in his statement that respondent and his parents chose the appellant No. 1 for respondent, therefore, although elder sister of the appellant No. 1 was not married by that time, he accepted the proposal and before getting the appellant No. 1 married with respondent he obtained the consent of her daughter, the appellant No. 1. On 2-6-1995 religious rituals of Betrothal and on 4-7-1995 the marriage took place. She lived with her husband. Respondent had to go abroad, therefore, he accompanied with maternal uncle of the appellant No. 1 namely Arun Kumar went to the house of respondent and on 17-9-1995 they brought the appellant No. 1 from her matrimonial house. In cross-examination he denied that on 17-9-1995 in his presence the appellant No. 1 disclosed that the marriage was performed against her consent and she will commit suicide. 14. Ramakant Swarnakar (NAW 3) who is maternal uncle of appellant No. 1 deposed in his statement that in the intervening night of 1st and 2nd June, 1995 the rituals of Betrothal were performed, earlier to that respondent and his father came to choose the girl. Ever since the date of choosing the girl and at the time of marriage he did not find any sign of unwillingness in the conduct of the appellant No. 1. 15. Arun Kumar Soni (NAW 4) who is maternal uncle of appellant No. 1 deposed that the respondent and his family members came and selected the appellant No. 1 for respondent. Thereafter, the rituals of Betrothal took place and on 4-7-1995 marriage was performed. Appellant No. 1 told him that she was willing to marry the respondent. On 17-9-1995 the father of the appellant No. 1 was called and it was communicated that the respondent was going abroad, therefore, they brought the appellant No. 1. In cross-examination he denied that on 17-9-1995 appellant No. 1 admitted that she was not married with her consent. 16. Girish Chandel (AW 1), the husband of appellant in cross-examination has admitted that on 2-6-1995 the rituals of betrothal took place in the parental house of the appellant No. 1 and on 4-7-1995 marriage was performed. 17. In cross-examination he denied that on 17-9-1995 appellant No. 1 admitted that she was not married with her consent. 16. Girish Chandel (AW 1), the husband of appellant in cross-examination has admitted that on 2-6-1995 the rituals of betrothal took place in the parental house of the appellant No. 1 and on 4-7-1995 marriage was performed. 17. When the girl herself was present and deposed that Betrothal and marriage took place with her consent and this evidence was supported by other evidence and circumstances and the same was credible, only on the shaky evidence that after marriage she was not co-operating or after marriage she told that she did not give her consent for marriage, adverse inference can not be drawn. 18. It is well-known phenomena that in Hindus the marriage ceremonies are very cumbersome and a lot of rituals are required to be performed and if the girl who is an educated one as is admittedly in the present case is unwilling, it is difficult to have all those rituals performed happily, and there is nothing to show her adverse attitude during any of the rituals. 19. So far as the circumstance of not endeavouring to change the name after marriage is concerned, from the evidence of respondent itself, it is clear that after marriage he himself took the appellant No. 1 for getting herself admitted for further education, therefore, when the respondent himself did not make any attempt at that juncture to get the name corrected and allowed, the appellant No. 1 to use her old identity, no adverse inference can be drawn. 20. From the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that overwhelming evidence was there to prove that appellant No. 1 was consenting party and since inception was willing to marry the respondent and with her consent rituals of Betrothal took place as well as marriage was performed, despite that the Trial Court only on the basis of shaky evidence regarding various circumstances which were noticed after marriage held that appellant No. 1 was married without her consent forcibly by her parents. Even on the principle of preponderance of probability although the alleged circumstances have been rebutted by credible evidence, yet if accepted to be true has no force to make it probable that appellant No. 1 was not willing to marry with respondent. Even on the principle of preponderance of probability although the alleged circumstances have been rebutted by credible evidence, yet if accepted to be true has no force to make it probable that appellant No. 1 was not willing to marry with respondent. Neither the fact of unwillingness exists nor any material fact was suppressed with the respondent to get the marriage of appellant No. 1 performed. 21. Respondent placed reliance on Prakash Singh Thakur v. Smt. Bharati, reported in 2000(3) M.P.H.T. 105 = 2000 (3) MPLJ 439, and Smt. Alka Sharma v. Abhinesh Chandra Sharma, reported in 1991 MPJR (1) 454, but on facts both these cases are distinguishable with the present case. 22. In the result, the finding of the learned Trial Court that the appellant was got married to respondent by her parents forcibly and without her consent is erroneous and deserves to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. 23. The appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside and, instead thereof the suit for nullity of marriage and divorce filed by respondent is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.