JUDGMENT : B.S. Walia, J. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 34 of the Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Marriage Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against judgement dated January 31, 2014 whereby the appellant's petition under Section 12 of the Act for annulment of his marriage by decree of nullity, as was solemnised with the respondent was rejected by the Learned Principal District Judge, Samba, vide order dated January 31, 2014 on file No. 181/HM Act. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to the instant appeal arc that the petition for annulment of marriage, was filed inter alia on the ground that the respondent ought not to have been married by her parents as she was of unfit mind, i.e., not fit in terms of her mental state to be married and carry a marital life and that knowledge of the same caused distress and depression to the appellant and his parents while at the same time sympathy for the respondent on account of her parents having been unfair to her, besides playing fraud on the petitioner and his parents, of mental disorder/abnormality afflicting the respondent making her unfit for giving valid consent for marriage as also making her unfit for marriage and performance of marital duties and responsibilities lifelong. 3. On the case being put up for filing of objections, the respondent, instead of submitting objections, filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the petition on the ground that the petition did not disclose any cause of action, besides was hit by limitation. Objections by the appellant to the said application did not find merit with the Learned Principal District Judge leading to rejection of the appeal in terms of Section 12 (1)(c) of the Act, as also the bar of limitation contemplated u/s 12(2)(a)(i) on account of having been filed on 31.12.2012, i.e., more than one year after discovery of fraud in November, 2009 of a material fact/circumstance concerning the respondent. 4. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the Court below dismissed the petition on the assumption of the same having been filed u/s 12(1)(c) therefore being hit by Section 12 (2) (a) (i) whereas the same had been filed u/s 5 (ii) (a) and (b) of the Act. 4. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the Court below dismissed the petition on the assumption of the same having been filed u/s 12(1)(c) therefore being hit by Section 12 (2) (a) (i) whereas the same had been filed u/s 5 (ii) (a) and (b) of the Act. It is pleaded that by no stretch could the petition be said to be one having been filed u/s 12(1)(c) of the Act. It is further the grievance of the appellant that in the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC it had nowhere been stated as to how the petition was barred by law of limitation yet the Learned Principal District Judge had assumed it to be hit by Section 12 (2)(a)(i) of the Act. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. However, the challenge to the impugned order is without merit, therefore the appeal must fail for the reasons recorded hereunder. 6. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on October 14, 2009. As per the averments in the petition, the appellant and his parents started noticing odd conduct of the respondent within a day of the marriage, and during the total period of stay of the respondent in the appellant's household i.e. less than one month, the appellant and his parents witnessed that the respondent was of unfit mind and should not have been married by her parents on account of her unfit mental state and inability to carry a marital life-paragraph 7 of the petition. In paragraph No. 8 of the petition it has been stated that on October 15, 2009 the appellant and respondent had gone to the respondent's parental home for a ritual visit i.e. Dofera, accompanied by the appellant's Jija and during the said trip the respondent acted very detached from the presence and company of the appellant besides was unmindful of the happenings around her, and further from the very next day onwards, the respondent's state of mental imbalance become noticeable and apparent as her each and every activity and conduct was abnormal i.e. she would make loud noises throughout the day as well as at night proclaiming herself to be a "Mata". On intimation, the respondent's parents came to the appellant's house on October 25, 2009 and took the respondent along with the appellant to a holy person who told that the respondent was not under any evil spell but required medical care in a hospital. Appellant's further stand was that on the way back from the holy person, the respondent continuously abused everyone, particularly her father and in the circumstances she was taken to Gandhi Nagar Government Hospital where she remained hospitalized from October 25, 2009 to October 27, 2009, however he had no interaction with the doctors as probably they were told not to share anything with him, that thereafter the respondent stayed with her parents at her parental house for the next 50 days on one excuse or the other and during the said period, the respondent's parents misbehaved with the appellant at his workplace, that during December 2009, the appellant and his sister went to fetch the respondent and during her stay of 5-6 days with the appellant at his house, the responded repeated her earlier behaviour whereupon the appellant got the respondent examined from Dr. Kulbhushan Sharma and Dr. Jagdish Thapa, Psychiatrists on December 19, 2009 and December 24, 2009 respectively and learnt that the respondent was already under the treatment of Dr. Kulbhushan Sharma. The respondent was taken back to her parents' house by her mother on January 17, 2009 and was not sent back thereafter. 7. In the aforementioned background the appellant filed a petition u/s 12 of the Act for a decree annulling the marriage between the parties. 8. In the background of the appellant coming to know within a month of the marriage that the respondent was of unsound mind and in the circumstances ought not to have been married of by her parents, whereas the petition for annulment of marriage was filed on December 31, 2012 i.e. more than one year after the discovery of the alleged fraud having been played on the appellant (consequentially of his consent to the marriage having been obtained on account of the deception which otherwise would not have been given) the learned Principal District Judge Samba in the light of Section 12(1)(c) and 12(2)(a)(i) of the Act, held the petition barred by limitation, consequentially requiring rejection in terms of Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC and accordingly rejected the same. 9. 9. The only ground taken up in the appeal is of the petition being one u/s 5(ii)(a)&(b) of the Act and not u/s 3 2(1)(c), therefore, not being hit by Section 12(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Section 5 (ii)(a)&(b) of the Act reads as under:- Section 5: A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely: - (i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage; (ii) at the time of marriage, neither party - (a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or (b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or (c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity or epilepsy; (iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of eighteen years and the bride the age of fifteen years at the time of the marriage; (iv) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two; (v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two; (vi) where the bride has not completed the age of eighteen years, the consent of her guardian in marriage, if any, has been obtained for the marriage. 10. Void marriages on the other hand are dealt with u/s 11. Section 11 reads as under: Section 11. Void Marriages : Any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto, be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in Clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5. 11. Void Marriages : Any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto, be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in Clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5. 11. Section 12 of the Act which deals with voidable marriages reads as under: Section 12 - Voidable Marriages - (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:- (a) that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotence of the respondent; or (b) that the marriage is in contravention of the condition specified in Clause (ii) of Section 5; or (c) that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner is required under Section 5, the consent of such guardian was obtained by force or fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent; or (d) that the respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person other than the petitioner. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no petition for annulling a marriage- (a) on the ground specified in Clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained if- (i) the petition is presented more than one year after the force had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered; or (ii) the petitioner has, with his or her full consent, lived with the other party to the marriage as husband or wife after the force had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered; (b) xxx (i) xxx (iii) 12. If would also be relevant to reproduce the contents of paragraph No. 10 of the petition for annulment of marriage: "10. That the mental disorder/abnormality with which the respondent is afflicted with has been before the marriage and being in the state the respondent was incapable of giving valid consent for marriage and also unfit for marriage and the performance of marital duties and responsibilities for lifelong. That the mental disorder/abnormality with which the respondent is afflicted with has been before the marriage and being in the state the respondent was incapable of giving valid consent for marriage and also unfit for marriage and the performance of marital duties and responsibilities for lifelong. Thus the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is voidable and requires to be annulled so as to save the life of the petitioner and the respondent as well from suffering perpetual waste." 13. The appellant has alleged that the respondent was incapable of giving valid consent for marriage. If that be so, the question of Section 5(ii)(b) being attracted does not arise for the same contemplates a situation where a person though capable of giving a valid consent suffers from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children. In fact the stand of the appellant in the petition brings the case squarely within the ambit of Section 12(1)(c) and consequentially Section 12(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the plea of the petition being u/s 5(ii)(a)&(b) is not correct. 14. Section 11 which deals with void marriages refers to a marriage which contravenes any of the conditions specified in Section 5(i), (iv) or (v). In other words a marriage which is in contravention of the conditions stipulated in Section 5(i) or (iv) or (v) is a void marriage while a marriage in contravention of the conditions specified in Section 5(ii) falls within the definition of void able marriages as specified in Section 11 of the Act. Section 5(ii)(a) contemplates either of the parties to the marriage being incapable of giving a valid consent to the marriage on account of unsoundness of mind whereas Section 5(ii)(b) contemplates a situation where a party to marriage capable of giving a valid consent is suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children. The disqualifications u/s 5(ii)(a) and (b) would fall u/s 12(1)(b) and would not be hit by the bar of limitation contemplated u/s 12(2)(a)(i). 15. The disqualifications u/s 5(ii)(a) and (b) would fall u/s 12(1)(b) and would not be hit by the bar of limitation contemplated u/s 12(2)(a)(i). 15. In the instant case, the petition u/s 12(1) (c) was filed inter alia on the ground of detection within one month of the marriage of the respondent being of unfit mind, resultantly of the conclusion of the appellant and his family that the respondents parents ought not to have married of the respondent on account of her not being in a fit mental state so as to be able to lead a married life and in the circumstances of a fraud having been played on the petitioner and his parents. In other words, the petitioner would not have consented for marriage had it not been for the fraud played on him and his parents. Averments to the above effect are traceable to the last 11 lines, particularly last line of paragraph No. 8 of the petition which brings the case squarely within the ambit of Section 12(1)(c), and consequently, Section 12(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Resultantly the petition filed by the appellant is hit by the bar of limitation of one year as contemplated u/s 12(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The fraud having come to light within one month of the marriage, i.e., by November 2009 while the petition u/s 12 was filed on 31.12.2012, i.e., one year beyond the detection of fraud, the petition is hit by the bar of limitation u/s 12(2)(a)(i) on account of not having been filed within one year of discovery of fraud. 16. In the light of the aforementioned position, I find no infirmity with the order passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Samba, rejecting the petition filed by the appellant u/s 12 of the Act so as to warrant interference in appeal. The appeal is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed as such. 17. No order as to costs.