JUDGMENT : N. D. DESHPANDE, J.: By present appeal, appellant/wife (original respondent) impugned the judgment and decree dated 16-6-2008 passed by Family Court, Aurangabad in favour of her husband (original petitioner) thereby declaring their marriage dated 14-12005 as null and void in a Petition No.B-2/ 2005. 2. After notice, respondent herein (referred to hereinafter as 'original petitioner/ husband) gave his appearance and is also represented by Advocate Shri. Sagar Killarikar, who filed Civil Application No.3113 of 2009, dated 5-3-2006 for early hearing with the undertaking that he would not perform marriage till final disposal of this appeal. Throughout hearing, both the parties were present in the Court and, therefore, we allow sometime for reconciliation which failed, before the judgment. 3. R. & P. is received. Appeal is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 4. Heard Mrs. C. E. Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the appellant/wife and Shri Sagar Killarikar, learned Counsel for the respondent/husband. 5. The material facts can be stated briefly, as under: The respondent/husband, who was the petitioner before the Family Court, Aurangabad, filed a Petition No.B-2/2005 seeking declaration that his marriage dated 141-2005 with the appellant/wife is null and void in law on the ground that it contravenes· the conditions specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by decree of nullity. The said petition came to be filed on 1-2-2005, within 15 days of the alleged marriage. The said petition was further amended on 3-3-2006 to the effect that his wife Preeti was already married on 13-12-1998 with one Pravin Paritkar, resident of Sanjay Nagar, Aurangabad and such entry of her marriage was found in the register kept with Pujari of Mahadeo Mandir (a temple), situated at Kesharsingpura, Aurangabad. She has a spouse named Pravin Paritkar living at the time of impugned marriage and her marital ties with said Pravin Paritkar is not yet dissolved by any decree of divorce or otherwise which still subsists. The parties were known to each other before the marriage and they were on visiting terms frequently. Both came from respectable family who had political background. Preeti' s mother named Shobha Ambhore was contesting election of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad from N -6, CIDCO Ward and petitioner's mother named Vimal Rajput was her rival candidate of Shiv Sena/BJP candidate. Petitioner's mother was declared elected and later on became Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. Both came from respectable family who had political background. Preeti' s mother named Shobha Ambhore was contesting election of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad from N -6, CIDCO Ward and petitioner's mother named Vimal Rajput was her rival candidate of Shiv Sena/BJP candidate. Petitioner's mother was declared elected and later on became Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. Petitioner is the only son born in a well-known Rajput family having good financial background. During election campaign, the parties became familiar to each other and had developed close friendship since long. Therefore, petitioner did not hesitate to help her father by a hand loan of Rs.80,000/- which he needed for purchasing a house before 2/3 years of the said election. The petitioner was in need of money during election campaign and demanded money back from Preeti and her parents. It was not repaid by them on one pretext or the other. He waited for 3 to 4 months and again pressed his demand of Rs.80,000/-. In turn, he was driven out of her house and was brutally beaten by her parents and others. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint in police station on 12-1-2005 regarding the incident of beating. 6. On the next day, he learnt that a false F.I.R. has been registered by Preeti for committing rape. It was maliciously done as counter blast to his previous day complaint regarding the demand made by him for return of his money of Rs.80,000/-, and in return, he received beating from them. Offence of rape was registered with an intention to defame him and his family. As the elections were approaching fast and to save himself from the arrest, the petitioner surrendered before police authority and agreed to marry with her. It was the condition put to him by them for withdrawal of the prosecution and to compound the offence of rape punishable under section 376 of I.P. Code. He was given threats of dire consequences, and therefore, he agreed to marry with her before police authorities on the evening of 14-1-2005 to be held at Budha Leni, Aurangabad, without his free will and free consent. The petitioner's presence at the marriage was secured with the help of muscle power of two gundas and spouses simply garlanded each other without performing any religious ceremonies or rituals. 7. The petitioner's presence at the marriage was secured with the help of muscle power of two gundas and spouses simply garlanded each other without performing any religious ceremonies or rituals. 7. The petitioner, at the outset, stated these facts in the petitioner which he filed within two weeks of his alleged marriage with Preeti immediately on 1-2-2005 under section 12(1)(c) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (refereed to hereinafter as 'the said Act') seeking declaration that his marriage dated 141-2005 which was performed at Budha Leni at Aurangabad with Preeti daughter of Anant Ambhore is null and void for no religious ceremonies, rituals or customs either of Rajput or Boudha community were performed to which they respectively belonged. It was further submitted that the petitioner belonged to Rajput community and Preeti belonged to Boudha by caste and the said marriage was not consumated for she was dropped at parents house by him immediately after marriage while returning from Budha Leni in a rickshaw as he was never ready and willing to marry with her for reasons above given. 8. After garlanding each other at Budha Leni in the same night while travelling in a rickshaw, Preeti told him that as per doctor's advice, she would never become mother of a child because she was not getting regular menstruation from last 2/3 years and· knowingly she married with him. Petitioner was shocked and was terribly disturbed and, therefore, dropped her at her house and returned home. He narrated entire story to his family members. 9. Petitioner also took her to Government Hospital for medical check up. He collected various reports as per doctor's advice and those were shown to Dr. Dummer Dushila. After thorough examination, it was disclosed that sloe was suffering from T.B. of uterus and that menstruation had stopped because of hormonal imbalance in her body. 10. Thus, the petitioner substantiated his petition by this additional ground of fraud that was discovered only after marriage when she was subjected to medical check up. The petitioner was also threatened to sign papers of marriage bond by Preeti who also threatened to prosecute her old complaint of rape, registered under section 376 of I.P. Code against him in case he refused. 11. The petitioner was also threatened to sign papers of marriage bond by Preeti who also threatened to prosecute her old complaint of rape, registered under section 376 of I.P. Code against him in case he refused. 11. On 3-3-2006, a petition was amended immediately when he also learnt about her previous marriage with one Pravin Paritkar, resident of Sanjay Nagar, Aurangabad held on 13-12-1998 and such entry of her marriage was found in a register kept with Pujari of Mahadeo Mandir (Kesharsing Pura, Aurangabad). Thus, Preeti, as a spouse, named Preeti Paritkar living at the time of impugned marriage and her marital ties is not yet dissolved by any decree of divorce or other awards. Therefore, on this ground also, he urged for a dissolution of the impugned marriage by appropriate order and decree. 12. Preeti resisted the petition denying all allegations made in the petition against her. Her main contention is that petitioner deceived her by giving false promises of marriage and started keeping physical relations with her which petitioner's mother did not like. So, there were frequent quarrels in the house of the petitioner on this issue. Therefore, she was constrained to file a complaint under section 376 of I.P. Code as she became the victim of false promises of marriage and was being exploited by the petitioner to spoil her life. Only after the said complaint, the petitioner became ready for marriage and both married on 14-1-2005 at Budha Leni which was attended by members/ public. There was no question of any forcible marriage and since they had married and, therefore, her complaint to prosecute him for rape did not survive. 13. She further stated that petitioner co-habited with her for a period of one week and during that period she was subjected to ill-treatment by his family members who also threatened her of dire consequences for giving divorce to the petitioner by mutual consent to which she never agreed. Her marriage was performed as per the customs of Hindu and Boudha community and is legal and binding of the spouses. She further stated that before their marriage, they were acquainted with each other for a period of over six years and they were in love. She further admitted that petitioner was having sexual relations with her even before the marriage for such a long period. She further stated that before their marriage, they were acquainted with each other for a period of over six years and they were in love. She further admitted that petitioner was having sexual relations with her even before the marriage for such a long period. She also denied her alleged previous marriage with one Pravin Paritkar on or about 14-121998, and as such, question of getting divorce from him before she married with the present petitioner, did not arise. According to her, there is no convincing and believable evidence brought on record by the petitioner to prove that she is legally wedded wife of Pravin Paritkar and marriage between them is legal and valid on the date of the impugned marriage, and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 14. We have carefully gone through impugned judgment of the learned Judge of the Family Court, so also the oral and documentary evidence relied by the petitioner on the various issues framed at Exhibit 42. It is seen that the petition was hotly contested, tooth and nail. 15. It is seen that seven witnesses have been examined by the petitioner/husband. Respondent examined herself and also one more witness named Bhadant Vishudhanand Bodhi to prove impugned marriage with free consent, as legal and valid. Upon consideration of the record and after hearing both the sides, it is seen that primarily, burden of proof is on the petitioner/husband to prove that (i) the impugned marriage dated 14-1-2005 is void, for Preeti has a spouse named Pravin Paritkar living at the time of the impugned marriage and her previous marriage was not dissolved, and (ii) further that he did not marry her with free consent and that he was forced to marry with her in view of false prosecution under Section 376 of the I.P. Code. 16. The Family Court recorded finding in the affirmative on both the issues relating to force and fraud committed at the time of the impugned marriage and respondent had already married with Pravin Paritkar on 14-12-1998, who is her spouse living at the time of impugned marriage. 17. Mrs. Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the respondent, took us through entire evidence led by the petitioner and later on .which was discussed in the impugned judgment. 17. Mrs. Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the respondent, took us through entire evidence led by the petitioner and later on .which was discussed in the impugned judgment. The findings were assailed mainly on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence on the point of her alleged previous marriage and it was urged that the same is not proved on record by cogent and legal evidence. The petitioner has admitted his affair with the respondent and gave her false promises of marriage. Only after registration of the complaint, he was ready for marriage which was performed at Budha Leni on 14-1-2005, and as such, it cannot be said to be a marriage without free consent or consent fraudulently obtained. Now, by denying the said marriage, petitioner has cheated her. 18. In the matter of appreciation of evidence, it is useful to refer to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. N. G. Dastane V s. Mrs. S. Dastane reported in AIR 1975 SC 1534 : [2007 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) "24. The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be established if it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities. This is for the reason that under the Evidence Act, Sec.3, a fact is said to be proved when the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact-situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities he finds that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second is to weigh them though the two many often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage. The improbable at the second. Within the wide range of probabilities the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where the preponderance of probabilities lies. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage. The improbable at the second. Within the wide range of probabilities the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where the preponderance of probabilities lies. Important issues like those which effect the status of parties demand a closer scrutiny than those like the loan on a promissory note: "the nature and gravity of an issue necessarily determines the manner of attaining reasonable satisfaction of the truth of the issue". Per Dixon, J. in W right Vs. Wright, (1948)77 CLR 191 at p.210; or as said by Lord Denning, "the degree of probability depends on the subject matter. In proportion as the offence is grave, so ought the proof to be clear. Blyth Vs. Blyth, 1966-1 ALL ER 524 at p.536". But whether the issue is one of cruelty or of a loan on a pro-note, the test to apply is whether on a preponderance of probabilities the relevant fact is proved. In civil cases this, normally, is the standard of proof to apply for finding whether the burden of proof is discharged." 19. We find the testimony of PW-4 Vithal Bansilal Jadhav and PW -5 Mohammad Ezazali, Joint District Registrar in the Office of Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Aurangabad, a believable piece of evidence to prove the entry in the marriage register referring to respondent Preeti Anant Ambhore having married to Pravin Tukaram Paritkar and the said entry is dated 21-12-1998. It is duly proved at Exhibit-69. He is the witness who has brought the said register. 20. One more witness PW-6 Mukund Manikrao Dolare, though is not a witness to the previous marriage of the respondent but his testimony is relevant on the point of registration of marriage dated 14-12-1998 of the respondent with Pravin Paritkar. 21. The important witness on this point is said Pravin Tukaram Paritkar himself and he deposed about his marriage with respondent which is relevant not only on the point of his marriage but also that the said marriage was not dissolved. There is no challenge to his evidence by respondent. Therefore, his evidence is brought on record to show that respondent spouse named Pravin Paritkar was living at the time of the impugned marriage and it is clear breach of contravention of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 22. There is no challenge to his evidence by respondent. Therefore, his evidence is brought on record to show that respondent spouse named Pravin Paritkar was living at the time of the impugned marriage and it is clear breach of contravention of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 22. Evidence of PW - 7 Madhukar Anandrao Pawar, A.P.I. of CIDCO Police Station is also relevant on the point of F.LR. C.R. No.06/05. He deposed that the said complaint was withdrawn when they married on 14-1-2005. He further stated that after registration of the aforesaid offence, the complainant had changed her statement on 13-3-2006 and, therefore, Court directed to reopen the complaint. 23. The main witness examined by petitioner is PW -8 Pravin Tukaram Paritkar. He was knowing Preeti since he was going college and they became friends and got married in the year 1998. It was registered in the Registrar's Office. He stated that Preeti nowadays was not residing with him. 24. Preeti deposed that on 12-12005, she lodged a complaint of rape against petitioner that he deceived her, did not marry and continued sexual relations with her. She was referred to Ghati Hospital by police for medical examination on 13-1-2005. Investigation revealed that she was ready and willing to marry with the petitioner and, therefore, both came to CIDCO Police Station. So, police recorded their further statements and they got married on 14-1-2005 at Buddha Leni, University Campus, Aurangabad. Marriage was performed by Parinaya Sutra. She examined the Priest Bhadant Vishnu Bodhi Mha Thero. It is seen that the factum of marriage is not disputed. However, petitioner has challenged its validity and legality and explained in what circumstances, he was forced to marry for nullity. 25. We have gone through the impugned judgment carefully and the discussion made by learned Family Court Judge and also appreciation of evidence for recording findings in the impugned judgment. Learned Family Court Judge also discussed the relevant provisions of law in the judgment referring to section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 7, ceremonies for a Hindu marriage, section 8 of registration of marriage and section 11 about void marriage. We find no difficulty to accept the finding recorded by the learned Family Court after going through the entire evidence. We find no difficulty to accept the finding recorded by the learned Family Court after going through the entire evidence. It is seen that respondent has concealed her marriage with Pravin Paritkar performed on 14-12-1998 and also that she had no menstruation regularly and was not able to conceive the child. This material fact has been suppressed by the respondent. It was also not suggested to Pravin Paritkar in cross-examination that she had never married to him. 26. The evidence is also brought on record that immediately after the impugned marriage Preeti was dropped at her house and there was no relation of husband and wife between them, and as such, there was no consummation of marriage. It is also observed that they were residing separately after performing marriage on 14-1-2005. It is also observed and admitted that the spouses are belonging to different communities and castes and at the time of marriage his consent was obtained by force and fraud. There is documentary evidence, Exhibit 72 i.e. application filed in the office of the Registrar of Marriages for taking entry of Preeti' s marriage with Pravin corroborates oral testimony of Pravin himself about his previous marriage needs to be believed. There is no contra evidence on record that the said marriage came to an end. So, finding recorded by learned Family Court that previous marital tie between Preeti and Pravin Paritkar still exists needs to be accepted. The learned Family Court also observed rightly that Preeti was in the habit of lodging not only false complaint against the petitioner of serious offence like rape but there were also complaints filed by her against others and all those papers are proved on record. 27. In para 89 of the impugned judgment, it is clearly observed that petitioner firstly filed a complaint dated 12-1-2005 and complaint of Preeti of rape came to be filed on the next day during the election period. Thus, it is proved on record that offence under section 376 of the J.P. Code was registered against the petitioner therefore, even if consent was given by petitioner to marriage, it was given under pressure and threat and, therefore, case of the petitioner has been believed. 28. Mrs. Thus, it is proved on record that offence under section 376 of the J.P. Code was registered against the petitioner therefore, even if consent was given by petitioner to marriage, it was given under pressure and threat and, therefore, case of the petitioner has been believed. 28. Mrs. Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has reiterated the same arguments which were advanced before the trial Court and the same authorities which were discussed and dealt with by learned Family Court. 29. Shri. Sagar Killarikar, learned Counsel for the respondent, relied on head note (a) of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M. M. Malhotra Vs. Union of India and others, 2006(1) Mh.L.J. 1 : [2006(2) ALL MR (S.C.) 102], which reads: "(A) Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), 5.11 - Marriages covered by section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are void from the very inception and have to be ignored as not existing in law at all However, formal declaration through decree of nullity need not be obtained. The marriages covered by section 11 are void ipso jure, that is, void from the very inception, and have to be ignored as not existing in law at all, if and when such a question arises. Although the section permits a formal declaration to be made on the presentation of a petition, it is not essential to obtain in advance such a formal declaration from a Court in a proceeding specifically commenced for the purpose. 1988 Mh.L.J. (SC) 335 = AIR 1988 SC 644 , Ref. (Para 10)" His contention needs to be accepted in the light of evidence of Pravin Paritkar and the document i.e. application for registration of the marriage which is regarding previous marriage on 14-12-1998 for declaring the impugned marriage as void from the very inception. 30. The findings recorded by learned Family Court are legal and proper and call for no interference even after reappraisal of all evidence by this Court, in this appeal. Appeal is devoid of merits and dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.