JUDGMENT 1. By the judgment impugned dated 11.12.2008 learned Family Court, Udaipur accepted an application preferred under Section 13(1 A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1955") preferred by the respondent wife and granted a decree annulling the marriage. The miscellaneous appeal preferred to challenge the judgment and decree aforesaid is barred by limitation from ten days, thus, an application is preferred as per provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. While examining the application preferred for condonation of delay, we have also examined merits of the case. 2. In brief, factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that the appellant entered into a wedlock with respondent on 7.3.2002. Alleging cruelty on the ground of potency the respondent wife preferred an application under Section 13(1 A) of the Act of 1955 before the Family Court, Udaipur. The Family Court, Udaipur by order dated 27.4.2005 directed the appellant to get himself medically examined by a Medical Board. Validity of the order dated 27.4.2005 was challenged by the appellant by approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which came to be dismissed, on 13.10.2008. Subsequent thereto several opportunities were given to the appellant to appear before the Medical Board, but of no consequence. The appellant husband also failed to participate in the proceedings, thus, the Court proceeded ex parte against him. Learned Family Court after considering entire material available on record and looking to the conduct of the appellant by not getting himself medically examined interred his cruelty qua his wife by not discharging conjugal duties. Learned trial Court also inferred that the appellant husband is impotent, hence failed for consummation of marriage. 3. The challenge to the finding aforesaid is given by the appellant only on the count that no finding with regard to potency of a man could have been given without providing adequate opportunity to him to establish his competence, and in the instant matter the Court gave such finding ex parte, as such violation of the principles of natural justice is apparent. 4. On examination of the record it reveals that the Family Court, Udaipur by the order dated 27.4.2005 directed the appellant to get himself medically examined by a board of experts, but he did not close to appear before that. 4. On examination of the record it reveals that the Family Court, Udaipur by the order dated 27.4.2005 directed the appellant to get himself medically examined by a board of experts, but he did not close to appear before that. The Family Court, thus, drew adverse inference and held the appellant a person impotent and not capable to consume marriage. We are in absolute agreement with the Court below. If the appellant was potent enough to consume the marriage, then he should have faced the Medical Board. No explanation is also given by the appellant for not appearing before the board of experts. The trial Court in such circumstances was having no option but to draw interference as drawn. As such, the finding given by the trial Court does not suffer fro many wrong. Once such finding is given then natural corollary is dissolution of marriage due to cruelty for not extending natural needs and desires of a marriage. 5. For the reasons given above, this appeal is having no merit. No useful purpose, therefore, shall be served even by condoning delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the miscellaneous appeal both are dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******