JUDGMENT As per Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, J.:- 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 12.9.2011 passed by Family Court, Janjgir-Champa, in Civil Suit No.73-A/10, whereby the application of the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion, has been rejected. 2. The facts not in dispute are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 29th April, 2004 at Village-Semaria as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and at that time, the appellant was posted as Gunner in the Indian Army at Amritsar (Punjab), who is presently posted at Bhatinda (Punjab). However, rest of the facts are disputed. 3. Case of the appellant/plaintiff, in brief, is that marriage of his sister was to be solemnized on 28th April, 2004, for which he had come to his Village-Semaria. However, the family members of the respondent/defendant leveled allegations against the appellant that he is having illicit relations with the respondent and unless he marries the respondent, they will not permit marriage of his sister to be solemnized. Therefore, the appellant with intent that no obstacles may be created by the respondent's family members during the marriage of his sister, married the respondent under pressure on 29th April 2004, but in fact the appellant as well as his family members were not willing that the appellant should marry the respondent. The allegations leveled by the respondent as well as her family members against the appellant were false and baseless and at no point of time the appellant had any illicit relations with the respondent. After marriage, the parties had never cohabited as husband and wife as immediately after marriage, the appellant proceeded to his place of posting and the respondent since marriage is residing with her parents at her parents' house. With intent to harass and torture the appellant, that the respondent has been making false complaints from time to time to the Army unit of the appellant, on which the said complaints were sent by the Army unit for-enquiry to the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa, who, in turn, had ordered the Station House Officer of Police Station-Bamhnideeh to enquire and submit a report. During enquiry, statements of the appellant's family members as well as respondent and her family members were recorded. From its very inception, there had been dispute between the families of the appellant and the respondent with regard to the marriage having been performed by exercising undue pressure, on account of which a meeting of Mahasabha of their community was convened at Village-Kuniyari on 26th February, 2009, in which Mahasabha had dissolved the marriage between the parties, which was solemnized on 29th April, 2004 by customary mode prevailing in their community. Statements of Brijlal (father of the appellant), present appellant, President Kiritram, Panch Battulal, Jeevanlal, respondent Rukhmani Bai, Chhotelal (father of the respondent), Bhuvanlal as well as Shyamlal were recorded by the Station House Officer of Police Station-Bamhnideeh in the enquiry, which was got conducted by Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa. Age of the respondent on the date of marriage i.e. 29th April, 2004 was less than 18 years, on account of which she was not in a position to give a valid consent for marriage and therefore also, the marriage performed on 29th April, 2004 is a nullity in the eye of law. The respondent as well as her family members were always quarreling and harassing as well as torturing the appellant and his family members. Since marriage, the respondent is living separately from the appellant and as such, deserted his company. On these grounds the application for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce was filed by the appellant/husband. 4. Case of the respondent/defendant, in brief, is that the appellant and the respondent were having love affair and prior to marriage, the appellant had also established physical relations with her. The appellant as well as his family members on account of their own free will had got the marriage solemnized on 29th April, 2004 and no undue influence or pressure was ever exercised upon them. The respondent till January, 2009 resided inner in-laws' house and the appellant and the respondent were also establishing physical relations during this period. Since February, 2009 on account negligent attitude of the appellant and his family members as well as on account of harassment meted out to the respondent by them, she is residing at, her parents' house. Whatever complaints have been made by the respondent to the Army unit of the appellant are based on true facts. Since February, 2009 on account negligent attitude of the appellant and his family members as well as on account of harassment meted out to the respondent by them, she is residing at, her parents' house. Whatever complaints have been made by the respondent to the Army unit of the appellant are based on true facts. Although regarding marital relations of the appellant and the respondent, a meeting of their community was convened at Village-Semaria on 26th February, 2009, but their marriage was not dissolved in the said meeting and their relation as husband and wife is still subsisting. The statements of witnesses were recorded by the Station House Officer of Police Station - Bamhnideeh in an enquiry which was got conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa, in which false statements were given by the present appellant and his witnesses. Even if it is assumed that on the date of marriage i.e. 29th April, 2004, the respondent was below the age of 18 years, then also the marriage solemnized on that date was not void, but voidable at the option of the respondent and after attaining the age of 18 years, the respondent has ratified the marriage. As such, the marriage between the parties is perfectly valid in view of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent has neither treated the appellant and his family members with cruelty nor has ever deserted the company of the appellant. On the contrary, the appellant and his family members since inception has neglected as well as tortured her, and in fact, the appellant has deserted the respondent. 5. Learned Family Court after affording opportunity of hearing and of adducing evidence to the parties, by the impugned judgment and decree dismissed the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the LCR as also the impugned judgment. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant in addition to oral arguments has also submitted written arguments/submission. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rishikesh Sharma Vs. Saroj Sharma 2007(2) MPLJ 319; Durga Prasanna Tripathy Vs. Arundhati Tripathy 2006(2) MPLJ 1; and judgments of this Court in the matters of Smt. Mamta Shrivastava Vs. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rishikesh Sharma Vs. Saroj Sharma 2007(2) MPLJ 319; Durga Prasanna Tripathy Vs. Arundhati Tripathy 2006(2) MPLJ 1; and judgments of this Court in the matters of Smt. Mamta Shrivastava Vs. Taresh Kumar Shrivastava 2010(2) CGLJ 24; and Dev Das Darsena Vs. Smt. Girija Bai Darsena 2010(2) CGLJ 142. 8. The main questions to be decided in this appeal are:- (i) Whether the marriage solemnized on 29th April, 2004 between the appellant and the respondent was performed under pressure, without the will and consent of the appellant? (ii) Whether respondent/wife has committed cruelty towards her husband/appellant and his family members and since marriage has deserted the company of the appellant? 9. To substantiate the averments made in the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the appellant/plaintiff in addition to himself has examined Amritlal, Lakhanlal and Baharta as PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 respectively. On the other hand, in order to substantiate the averments made in her written statement, the respondent/defendant in addition to herself has examined her father Chhotelal, Madraj, Kishno Kashyap and her uncle Ramhai as DW-2, DW-3, DW-4 and DW-5 respectively., 10. So far as the question of marriage having been performed under pressure is concerned, the appellant/plaintiff Pawan Kumar Kashyap (PW-1) has stated that as the marriage of his sister was due to be solemnized on 28th April, 2009, that he had come to his Village-Semaria and at that time, the respondent's family members had leveled false allegations against him that he is having illicit relations with the respondent and in case, he does not marry the respondent, they will not permit marriage of his sister to be performed, on account of which with the sole intention of avoiding any obstacle in the marriage of his sister, that he had performed marriage with the respondent under pressure. This is not in dispute that marriage of the appellant's sister was performed on 28th April, 2004, whereas marriage of the appellant and the respondent was performed on the next day i.e. 29th April, 2004. This is not in dispute that marriage of the appellant's sister was performed on 28th April, 2004, whereas marriage of the appellant and the respondent was performed on the next day i.e. 29th April, 2004. As such, even after solemnization of marriage of the appellant's sister on 28th April, 2004 and before solemnization of the appellant's marriage, if his marriage was being performed under pressure against his will and without his consent, then there was sufficient time for him to have recourse to the authorities for helping him in not getting the marriage performed with the respondent. Even after solemnization of the marriage on 29th April, 2004, no complaint was made in this regard to the police or any other authority, nor the appellant initiated any proceedings for getting the marriage declared as null and void. 11. Respondent/defendant (DW-1) Rukhmani as well as her father Chhotelal (DW-2) have stated that as the appellant/plaintiff had established physical relations with the respondent, that the appellant with intent to maintain his honour in the community had married the respondent, for which the family members of the appellant as well as the respondent had agreed and subsequent to that, the marriage was performed on 29th April, 2004. In addition to this, witnesses Madraj (DW-3), Kishno (DW-4) and Ramhai (DW-5), have specifically stated that marriage of the appellant with the respondent was performed with their consent and with the consent of their family members. The statements of the witnesses, who have been examined on behalf of the respondent, lave not been challenged by the appellant in their cross-examination. Although after asking a couple of questions in the cross-examination of the respondent, the appellant had concluded his cross-examination, but the witness (respondent) was virtually further cross-examined by the Court, which, in any circumstances, is not warranted. Although the witnesses Lakhanlal (PW-3) and Baharta (PW-4) have stated that there was dispute between the families of the appellant and the respondent with regard to marriage performed on 29th April, 2004 but these witnesses have nowhere stated that the marriage was performed exercising undue pressure upon the appellant as well as his family members. Although the witnesses Lakhanlal (PW-3) and Baharta (PW-4) have stated that there was dispute between the families of the appellant and the respondent with regard to marriage performed on 29th April, 2004 but these witnesses have nowhere stated that the marriage was performed exercising undue pressure upon the appellant as well as his family members. Though Kishno (DW-4) and Ramhai (DW-5), who is uncle of the respondent, have stated in paras-3 of their statements that at the time of Faldan (breaking of coconut) the appellant was not present, but looking to the statements of the witnesses of the appellant, the unrebutted statements of the respondent's witnesses and the subsequent conduct of the appellant, it cannot be said that the marriage solemnized on 29th April, 2004 was performed by exercising undue pressure upon the appellant as well as his family members. 12. So far as the question of effect of the respondent having been below 18 years of age on the date of marriage upon the marriage is concerned, even if it is assumed that the respondent was below 18 years of age on the date of marriage i.e. 29th April, 2004, then also the said marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be termed as void in view of the provisions of Sections 5, 11 & 12 and is voidable at the option of the respondent/wife. The respondent/wife after attaining majority i.e. the age of 18 years, has not initiated any proceedings for getting the marriage declared as null and void, but on the contrary by her conduct has ratified or confirmed the marriage which was solemnized on 29th April, 2004. 13. As per the statements of appellant/plaintiff Pawan Kumar Kashyap (PW-1) and his witnesses, marriage between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved in a meeting of their community convened on 26th February, 2009 at Village-Kuriyari. However, no document in this regard has been filed by the appellant. On the contrary, the respondent/defendant Rukhmani (DW-l) as well as her witnesses have specifically stated that meeting of their community with regard to marital relationship of the appellant and the respondent was held first at Village-Jamdi and subsequently, on 26th February, 2009 at Village-Kuriyari, but no decision with regard to dissolving their marriage was taken and on the contrary, father of the respondent was asked to drop the respondent at her in-laws' house. 14. 14. It is not in dispute that marriage between the parties was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and they are governed by Hindu law. As such regarding marriage and divorce they are governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and marriage between the parties can be dissolved only on establishing one of the grounds mentioned in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 therefore a competent civil Court by obtaining a decree of divorce. As such, even if it is assumed that in the meeting of the community, which was convened on 26th February, 2009 at Village-Kuriyari, marriage between the parties was dissolved, then also in view of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and of the fact that the parties are governed by the provisions of the said Act, decision of the community dissolving the marriage between the parties is of no effect and has no force in the eye of law. 15. The appellant/plaintiff Pawan Kumar (PW-1) has stated that the marriage of his sister was due to be solemnized on 28th April, 2004 and with intent that no obstacles may be created by the respondent's family members in the said marriage, that he had performed marriage with the respondent under pressure on 29th April, 2004, whereas he and his family members were not ready for his marriage with the respondent. He has further stated that the respondent as well as her family members had leveled false allegations against him that he was having illicit relations with the respondent, whereas in fact he never had any illicit relations with the respondent. Although in para-2 of his statement, the appellant/plaintiff (PW -1) has stated that after marriage he never lived with the respondent and had proceeded to his place of posting at Punjab, but further this witness has, at the end of same (para-2), stated that the respondent after marriage had been visiting his house for about three years. In addition to this, he has specifically pleaded in para-II of the plaint that after solemnization of marriage on 29th April, 2004, the respondent lived at his house for about 16 months. In para-3 of his statement, he has also stated that the respondent after marriage had lived with him for 4 years and he had also established physical relations with her. In para-3 of his statement, he has also stated that the respondent after marriage had lived with him for 4 years and he had also established physical relations with her. The appellant (PW-1) has further stated that the respondent used to send written complaints against him to his Army unit, which, in turn, had got the said complaints enquired through S.P., Janjgir-Champa and in the meeting of their community convened at Village-Kuriyari on 26th February, 2009, the marriage between the parties had been dissolved as per their customary mode. 16. On the contrary, the respondent/defendant Rukhmani Bai (DW-1) has stated that till January, 2009, she had been living at her in-laws house and only on account of negligent attitude of the appellant as well as his family members and the harassment and torture meted out to her by them, that since February, 2009 she is living at her parents house. She has further stated that although regarding their marital relations a meeting of their community was convened at Village-Kuriyari on 26th February, 2009, but no decision with regard to dissolution of their marriage was taken in the said meeting. 17. Regarding cruelty, appellant Pawan Kumar (PW-1) has stated that the respondent/wife used to send false complaints against him to his Army unit, which, in turn, had got the complaints enquired into by the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa. In addition to this, when the appellant was posted at Jammu, the respondent/wife had consumed poison. The appellant's witness Amritlal (PW-2) and Lakhanlal (PW-3) have not stated anything in this regard' and have only stated that regarding marriage of the appellant and the respondent, there was dispute between their families, in respect of which meetings of their community were first convened in the year 2008 at Village-Jamdi and subsequently, in February, 2009 at Village-Kuniyari. Baharta (PW-4) has only stated that after 4-5 years of marriage, the appellant had moved an application in the meeting of their community that he is posted outside and in his absence the respondent/wife is in the habit of consuming poison. 18. From the statement of Baharta (PW-4) it is clear that regarding consumption of poison by the respondent/wife he does not have any personal knowledge and had only come to know about the same on being told by the appellant in the meeting of their community. 18. From the statement of Baharta (PW-4) it is clear that regarding consumption of poison by the respondent/wife he does not have any personal knowledge and had only come to know about the same on being told by the appellant in the meeting of their community. Except the bald statement of the appellant/plaintiff on this point, no other cogent and reliable evidence has been adduced on behalf of the appellant for substantiating the same. 19. The appellant/plaintiff (PW-1) has himself stated that in the meeting of their community held on 26.2.2009 at Village-Kuriyari that his marriage with the respondent, which was solemnized on 29th April, 2004, was dissolved by customary mode. From the statements of Amritlal (PW-2), Lakhanlal (PW-3) and Baharta (PW-4), it is found that regarding marriage of the appellant with the respondent, which was performed on 29th April, 2004, there was dispute between both the families and in this regard meeting of their community was first called at Village-Jamdi in the year 2008 and father of the respondent was directed to drop the respondent at her in-laws' house, but the said direction was not complied with. 20. Lakhanlal (PW-3) has specifically stated in para-l of his statement that in the meeting of their community held at Village-Jamdi, the appellant by moving an application had stated that he cannot pull on with the respondent/ wife, on which both the appellant and the respondent were advised and persuaded to patch up their differences and when the appellant had moved a second application before the body of the community, that the appellant was held guilty and sentenced to fine by the body of the community. 21. Respondent/defendant Smt. Rukhmani (DW-l) has admitted that she had sent complaints to the Army unit of the appellant but the same were based on true facts. She has further stated that till January, 2009 she had lived with the appellant at his house at Village-Semaria and from time to time when the appellant used to visit his house at Semaria, they were having physical relations with each other and only on being harassed and tortured by the appellant and his family members, that since February, 2009 she is living at her parents' house. As such, it is not in dispute that the complaints were sent by the respondent against the appellant to his Army unit and the same were got enquired into through Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa. The respondent/wife has specifically stated that the said complaints are based on true facts and they were not made with intent to harass, torture or humiliate the appellant. The appellant has not adduced any evidence to prove that the complaints sent by the respondent against him to his Army unit were false and baseless and were I sent with the sole intent to cause damage to him. Therefore, from the evidence adduced, the appellant has not been successful in establishing that the respondent and her family members committed cruelty towards the appellant and his family members and the respondent has deserted his company and residing at her parents' house without any just and reasonable cause. 22. So far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant are concerned, having gone through the same, it is found that the facts of the cited cases are substantially different from the facts of the case in hand and as such, the law laid down in the cited cases is not applicable to the present case and they are of no help to the appellant. 23. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, we find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Family Court rejecting the application of the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same deserves to be affirmed. 24. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 12.9.2011 passed by Family Court, Janjgir-Champa, in Civil Suit No.73-A/10, is hereby affirmed. 25. No order as to costs. 26. Additional Registrar (Judicial) is directed to draw up a decree accordingly. Appeal Dismissed.