ORDER : Govind Mathur, J. 1. To examine correctness of judgment and decree dated 17.12.2014 passed by learned Family Court, Chittorgarh this appeal is preferred. By the order aforesaid, the learned Family court dismissed the application preferred by the appellant as per section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. In brief, the factual matrix of the case is that the appellant entered into a wedlock with the respondent on 13.12.1996, out of that a son Deepak was born. As per the appellant the respondent was not maintaining good relations with him and was threatening quite often to implicate him in the case pertaining to demand of dowry. On 14.1.2002 she at her own left the matrimonial house with all ornaments and other articles. She also lodged a false case pertaining to the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. In addition to whatever stated, the appellant asserted that much emphasis was given to the fact that prior to 13.12.1996, the respondent entered into a wedlock with Shri Kanwar Lal @ Kanwalchand, resident of Narayan Garh and, as such, the marriage with the appellant was void-ab-initio. It is submitted that in a Criminal Revision Petition No.2/2005 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera denied maintenance by holding that the respondent was married to some other person. On having this finding, the issue with regard to first marriage of the respondent, as per the appellant, is not required to be further established. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the entire argument advanced is absolutely misconceived in view of the fact that the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge dated 21.10.2005 was subject matter of a criminal revision petitioner bearing No.1068/2005, that came to be decided by this Court under an order dated 18.8.2016 and the order aforesaid was altered to the extent of finding recorded with regard to marriage of the respondent with one Shri Kanwalchand. A copy of the judgment passed by the learned Single Bench has also been shown to us. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to dispute the facts stated by learned counsel for the respondent. 5. In view of the factual position noticed above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no material available on record sufficient to declare marriage solemnised between the parties on 13.12.1996 void-ab-initio. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to dispute the facts stated by learned counsel for the respondent. 5. In view of the factual position noticed above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no material available on record sufficient to declare marriage solemnised between the parties on 13.12.1996 void-ab-initio. In view of it, the judgment and decree impugned does not suffer from any wrong. The appeal hence is dismissed.