JUDGMENT Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal, J.: (Oral) - The husband has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat, whereby on a petition filed by the respondent (wife), the marriage between the appellant and respondent was declared void by a decree of nullity on the ground that the same was solemnized in contravention of Clause (i) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. During the course of arguments it is not disputed that when the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19.2.2006, the appellant (husband) was already married to one Seema, and the said marriage was subsisting on the date of his second marriage with the respondent because the said marriage was never dissolved by the competent Court by passing a valid decree. The only argument raised is that the respondent (wife) claimed to have learnt about the first marriage of the appellant (husband) in the month of April, 2007, whereas she filed the petition for declaring the marriage as void on 14.6.2008. Thus, he contends that such petition was not maintainable in view of Section 12(2)(a) of the Act as the same was not filed within one year of the said knowledge. 3. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted as the same is wholly devoid of merit. Section 11 of the Act deals with void marriages. A marriage solemnized after commencement of the Act in contravention of any of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 shall be null and void and such marriage on a petition presented by either party thereto, be so declared by a decree of nullity. In this Section there is no requirement of filing such petition within specified time for declaring the marriage void. On the other hand, Section 12 of the Act deals with voidable marriages which provides that a marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, can be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the grounds mentioned therein if filed within specified time after the marriage. 4. On the other hand, Section 12 of the Act deals with voidable marriages which provides that a marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, can be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the grounds mentioned therein if filed within specified time after the marriage. 4. In the present case, Section 12 of the Act is not applicable at all because the respondent (wife) had sought declaration to the effect that the marriage between her and appellant (husband) be declared void by a decree of nullity on the ground of being in contravention of Clause (i) of Section 5 of the Act. Such marriage can be declared void at any time. Merely because while filing the petition the wife had mentioned that the petition was filed under Section 12 or the learned Additional District Judge has ordered that the marriage is annulled under Section 12 will not mean that the marriage in the instant case was declared void by a decree of nullity under Section 12. Under Section 11 the marriage shall be declared null and void by a decree of nullity, whereas under Section 12 the marriage shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity. The marriage in contravention of Clause (i) of Section 5 only could have been declared void by a decree of nullity. The using of the words that the marriage was annulled by a decree of nullity ipso facto does not mean that the marriage was annulled under Section 12 of the Act. The wrong mentioning of the Section in the petition and the impugned order will not make any difference. Thus, in our opinion, in the present case there was no requirement for the respondent (wife) to file the petition for declaring the marriage void by a decree of nullity within a period of one year. 5. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 12.12.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat. Dismissed. ------------------