JUDGMENT : Deepak Maheshwari, J. 1. This misc. appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 22.05.2014 passed by the ld. Family Judge No. 1, Jaipur in Suit No. 01/2006 (Kailash Chand Meena v. Smt. Gopi Devi Meena), whereby he dismissed the suit seeking to declare the marriage between the parties as null & void. The short question involved in the appeal for our consideration is that whether the resolution dated 17.01.2004 (Ex. 1) of Caste Panchayat to dissolve the marriage between the parties as per the customs prevalent in then-caste, who are members of Scheduled Tribe and therefore, exempt from the applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act') u/S. 2(2) of the said Act, can be relied upon as an authentic and genuine document. This issue is to be examined further whether affidavit (Ex.-2) allegedly sworn in by respondent Gopi Devi and the marriage dissolution deed (Ex.-3) can also be given credence or not? 2. The suit came to be filed by appellant-plaintiff Kailash Chand Meena on 15.12.2005 in ld. Family Court No. 1, Jaipur with the averments that both the parties belong to caste 'Meena', whose marriage took place on 25.05.1983 as per Hindu customs & rituals at village Kishorepura, Tehsil Jaipur. Age of plaintiff was 08 years & that of defendant was 04 years respectively at that time. They were not aware of any marital ties and its obligations. No 'Gauna' (consummation of marriage) took place between them and therefore, no issue was born out of the wedlock. They never accepted each other as husband & wife. Family members & caste fellows got the marriage dissolved as per the extent traditions of Meena caste and mutual consent of both the parties in the community Panchayat held on 17.1.2004. It was also alleged that a marriage dissolution deed was also executed by the parties and got notarized on 01.10.2004. Despite this, respondent-defendant raised the demand for maintenance allowance and refused to acknowledge the dissolution of marriage. It was also averred that prior to it, a suit for declaration of dissolution of marriage was filed in ld. Family Court No. 2, Jaipur, which was withdrawn on 07.12.2005 for some legal and technical lacunas. A decree for declaring the marriage dissolved as per the decision of the caste Panchayat dt. 17.01.2004 was prayed for by filing the suit. 3. Family Court No. 2, Jaipur, which was withdrawn on 07.12.2005 for some legal and technical lacunas. A decree for declaring the marriage dissolved as per the decision of the caste Panchayat dt. 17.01.2004 was prayed for by filing the suit. 3. In reply filed by respondent-wife Smt. Gopi Devi, she stated that the marriage took place on 25.03.1983 instead of 25.05.1983. After six years of marriage 'Gauna' was ceremonised and wife stayed in the house of plaintiff. The alleged caste Panchayat's deed of dissolution of marriage is false & fabricated and so also her affidavit. In this regard, a criminal complaint was also filed by her, which is pending trial. The respondent has completely denied the existence of dissolution deed of marriage dt. 17.01.2004 prepared by caste Panchayat. It has also been mentioned that the plaintiff has not withdrawn the earlier suit with the permission to file fresh and the same was withdrawn on account of the fear of being punished for the false & fabricated caste Panchayat resolution dissolving the marriage. The said resolution dt. 17.01.2004 and the so-called affidavit of respondent has been forged by the plaintiff just to get rid of her. It was further averred that since the criminal case for forging the alleged caste Panchayat resolution is pending before the criminal court of a competent jurisdiction, the suit is premature and is not maintainable, and therefore, may be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the ld. Family Judge:- (I) Whether the marriage between the parties was dissolved as per the decision of caste Panchayat? (II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree declaring the marriage between the parties dissolved? (III) Relief? 5. The plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 along with four other witnesses namely Ramdhan (PW-2), Rajesh Meena (PW-3), Ram Kunwar (PW-4) & Ramjilal (PW-5). Defendant Smt. Gopi Devi herself examined as DW-1 and her brother Hanuman was also examined as DW-2. Certain documentary evidence was also filed by the parties. 6. After taking into consideration the evidence available on record and affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides, ld. Family Judge decided both the issues against the plaintiff and he was non-suited accordingly. 7. Ld. counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has assailed me judgment on the count that the evidence has not been properly appreciated by the ld. Family Judge. After taking into consideration the evidence available on record and affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides, ld. Family Judge decided both the issues against the plaintiff and he was non-suited accordingly. 7. Ld. counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has assailed me judgment on the count that the evidence has not been properly appreciated by the ld. Family Judge. He has further failed to consider the principle of breakdown of marriage. The marriage between the parties took place in their minor age when they were not in a position to understand and discharge the marital obligations. The factum of 'Nata' (second marriage) between Smt. Gopi and one Babu Lal Meena has been completely ignored by the ld. Family Judge. It has also been contended that the Panchas, who attended the caste Panchayat, namely PW-2 Ramdhan, PW-3 Rajesh Meena & PW-4 Ram Kunwar were examined at the instance of plaintiff, and stated to have witnessed the proceedings of the caste Panchayat and have signed the resolution Ex. 1 have proved it, but the same has not been relied upon by the ld. Family Judge. Thus, the judgment impugned is perverse and is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 8. Per contra, ld. counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the judgment impugned and contended that the resolution (Ex. 1) of the caste Panchayat effecting the dissolution of marriage between the parties is fake and forged one. Even the Chairman of the alleged caste Panchayat namely Radheyshyam has not dared to come in the witness box to prove the resolution dated 17.01.2004 (Ex. 1). The witnesses, who are said to be present in the said Panchayat are interested witnesses only; their presence in the alleged caste Panchayat is not beyond doubt. The thumb impression allegedly appended by respondent Smt. Gopi on Ex. 1 & Ex. 2 are completely forged, in respect of which FIR No. 49/2006 was filed at P.S. Jhotwada by Smt. Gopi. After getting the alleged caste decision dated 17.01.2004 examined by the FSL and after conducting investigation, charge-sheet for the offences u/Ss. 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471, IPC was filed against the plaintiff, on which the cognizance was also taken by the court of competent jurisdiction on 21.11.2008. Criminal Revision was preferred by the plaintiff against the said order, which came to be rejected vide order dated 23.06.2010 by the ld. revisional court. 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471, IPC was filed against the plaintiff, on which the cognizance was also taken by the court of competent jurisdiction on 21.11.2008. Criminal Revision was preferred by the plaintiff against the said order, which came to be rejected vide order dated 23.06.2010 by the ld. revisional court. The criminal case is yet pending trial. This aspect has been taken into consideration by the ld. trial court and accordingly it came to the conclusion that the document Ex. 1 is not genuine one and cannot be relied upon. 9. Ld. counsel has further contended that thumb impression of Smt. Gopi on affidavit Ex. 2 and dissolution deed of marriage Ex. 3 are also fake and forged. There was no justification to get Ex. 3 prepared & notarized on 01.10.2004 after a long gap of 9½ months of the alleged caste Panchayat dt. 17.01.2004. It has been further contended that respondent Smt. Gopi Devi stayed in her matrimonial home Bishangarh along with appellant plaintiff Kailash Chand Meena. Family ration card (Mark-1) is the public document to substantiate this fact. Her name was also entered in the voters-list along with her address at Bishangarh. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the respondent never stayed with the appellant-plaintiff as his wife. The allegation of performing 'Nata' marriage with Babu Lal Meena is totally baseless and has not been substantiated by the evidence. Ld. counsel thus submits that the appeal is without any substance and deserves to be dismissed. 10. At the outset, we find it appropriate to decide the application filed u/O. 41 R. 27 CPC on behalf of the appellant, whereby order dated 22/23.10.2007 (Annex. A) of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Sewapura cancelling the ration card No. 426 of Smt. Gopi Devi (Annex. A) and certificate dated 25.09.2007 (Annex. B) regarding deletion of her name from the voters-list, 2007 of Bishangarh have been prayed to be taken on record. 11. Suffice it is to mention that these documents pertain to the year 2007 whereas DW-1 Gopi is said to have stayed with appellant Kailash for 8-9 years. DW-2 Hanuman has categorically stated that Gopi stayed there upto the year 2006. 11. Suffice it is to mention that these documents pertain to the year 2007 whereas DW-1 Gopi is said to have stayed with appellant Kailash for 8-9 years. DW-2 Hanuman has categorically stated that Gopi stayed there upto the year 2006. In our considered view, if the name of Smt. Gopi has been deleted from the voter-list on dated 25.09.2007 or her ration card has been cancelled on 23.08.2007, it does not make any impact upon the averments made by her. These documents are, though taken on record, but are of no assistance to the appellant being issued on later date. 12. We have scanned the judgment impugned in light of the material available on record as also the arguments advanced by both the rival sides. 13. A bare look of the judgment impugned dated 22.05.2014 illustrates that after thoroughly discussing the evidence led by both the sides, ld. trial court has arrived at the conclusion that issue Nos. 1 & 2 are not found proved in favour of the plaintiff. 14. The main crux of the matter is whether the caste Panchayat decision taken on 17.01.2004 (Ex. 1) as also the affidavit sworn in by Smt. Gopi Devi (Ex. 2) and marriage dissolution deed (Ex. 3) can be considered as genuine and reliable documents and based on them, whether the marriage between the parties can be treated to have been dissolved or not. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant for getting the declaratory decree that the marriage between the parties has been dissolved by the caste Panchayat are mainly based on these documents. In this regard this fact may be taken note of that the so-called Chairman of Aadiwasi Meena Panchayat, Bishangarh namely Radheyshyam has not been examined in the witness box. Other witnesses, who testified to be members of Panchayat i.e. PW-2, PW-3 & PW-4 have admitted that Radheyshyam is residing at Jaipur. Despite the fact that he is alive, not examining him casts a serious doubt about the whole proceeding, which allegedly took place on 17.01.2004. 15. Secondly, the father of plaintiff-appellant i.e. Shyonath Meena and that of respondent Smt. Gopi Devi namely Sunder Lal Meena have also not come to the witness box, though their signatures are said to have been appended on Ex. 1 as also on Ex. 2. 15. Secondly, the father of plaintiff-appellant i.e. Shyonath Meena and that of respondent Smt. Gopi Devi namely Sunder Lal Meena have also not come to the witness box, though their signatures are said to have been appended on Ex. 1 as also on Ex. 2. Other witnesses who were said to have been present at the panchayat and examined at the instance of plaintiff are PW-2 Ramdhan, PW-3 Rajesh Meena & PW-4 Ram Kunwar. But PW-2 Ramdhan has admitted in his cross-examination that he is not a permanent member of this Panchayat. He has also admitted that plaintiff Kailash Chand is his friend. Likewise, PW-3 Rajesh Meena has admitted that the respondent Gopi Devi is known to her being sister-in-law of his cousin brother Ramji Lal. Ramjilal has been examined as PW-5, who has admitted that plaintiff is his real brother. It goes to show that Rajesh Meena is also cousin brother of the plaintiff. PW-4 Ram Kunwar has admitted in his cross-examination that he knew the family of plaintiff since his childhood. In light of these admissions, it is obvious that all the witnesses who are said to be members of the said caste Panchayat are intimately related to the plaintiff and are interested witnesses. In view of this, no credence can be placed on their statements alone and the genuineness of the proceedings are to be further cross checked. 16. Further these witnesses have expressed their ignorance about the suggestion that criminal case is pending against plaintiff-appellant Kailash Chand in respect of this resolution of Panchayat (Ex. 1) on the allegation that the thumb impression of Gopi Devi appended upon Ex. 1 is forged and fabricated one. Bona fide doubt is further created on the said thumb impression, in view of the fact that she has put signature on her statement as DW-1. 17. Plaintiff Kailash Chand Meena and his other witnesses have admitted that no document relating to the registration of said Caste Panchayat has been placed on record. Neither they are aware whether it is a registered Panchayat or not. So no reliance can be placed on the document allegedly executed by such Panchayat. 18. The witnesses, who have been examined as Panchas of the said caste Panchayat have also admitted in their cross-examination that the proceedings of the meeting continued for 3-4 hours. It poses a serious question mark on the resolution Ex. 1. So no reliance can be placed on the document allegedly executed by such Panchayat. 18. The witnesses, who have been examined as Panchas of the said caste Panchayat have also admitted in their cross-examination that the proceedings of the meeting continued for 3-4 hours. It poses a serious question mark on the resolution Ex. 1. If both the parties have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage by consent, then why the proceedings continued for a long period of 3-4 hours. Further, no such cogent reason has been mentioned in the document Ex. 1 as to why Kailash Chand Meena & Smt. Gopi Devi Meena decided to dissolve the marriage and what was the dispute between them so as to arrive at such decision. In absence of any such reason in Ex. 1, its genuineness comes under clout. 19. It is pertinent to note that DW-1 Smt. Gopi Devi has categorically denied that their marriage was dissolved by the caste Panchayat. She has further mentioned that the plaintiff got prepared one forged and fabricated dissolution deed of marriage, for which he had been kept in the custody also. She has specifically denied that her thumb impression was appended on Ex. 1 at mark 'X'. She has also denied the signatures of her father and uncle Rampal on Ex. 1. Similarly, Hanuman DW-2 has stated that the plaintiff has obtained a forged and fabricated dissolution of deed of marriage from Panchayat of Meena Community. He has also denied the suggestion that he along with his father and uncle Rampal were present in the caste Panchayat, Bishangarh on 17.01.2004. He has further denied the genuineness of documents Ex. 2 & Ex. 3. 20. In light of the evidence referred above, the conclusion drawn by ld. trial court appears to be correct that the genuineness and execution of document Ex. 1 has not been proved by the plaintiff. 21. It further needs to be observed here that FIR No. 49/2006 was filed at P.S. Jhotwada, Jaipur on 19.01.2006 by Smt. Gopi Devi against plaintiff-appellant Kailash Chand Meena and others for the offence u/Ss. 420, 465, 468, 471, 474, 193, 205 & 120-B, IPC. The order dated 21.11.2008 is available on record, whereby the Court of ACJM No. 4 took cognizance for the offence u/Ss.420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC against Kailash Chand Meena on filing of charge-sheet. 420, 465, 468, 471, 474, 193, 205 & 120-B, IPC. The order dated 21.11.2008 is available on record, whereby the Court of ACJM No. 4 took cognizance for the offence u/Ss.420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC against Kailash Chand Meena on filing of charge-sheet. He preferred a Criminal Revision No. 49/2010 against the said order dated 21.11.2008, which came to be rejected vide order dt. 23.06.2010 and the cognizance order was upheld. The proceedings of the said criminal case is said to be pending as yet. However, in light of the fact that after investigation and getting the relevant documents examined by FSL, the charge-sheet has been filed against Kailash Chand Meena, the genuineness of the documents Ex.-1, Ex.-2 & Ex.-3 cannot be assumed at this stage. 22. Our attention has been drawn towards statement of PW-1 Kailash Chand Meena that he was discharged by the court concerned in Criminal Case No. 49/2006. But on perusal of the order dated 21.11.2008, it is found that earlier the FIR was filed at P.S. Jhotwada but because of lack of territorial jurisdiction, accused-Kailash Chand Meena was discharged u/S. 169, Cr.P.C. by the Court of ACJM No. 3 and the FIR was transferred from RS. Jhotwada to RS. Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur and FIR No. 197/2006 was lodged for the same offences and after investigation, charge-sheet was also filed. In view of it, the aforesaid statement given by Kailash Chand Meena does not come to his rescue. 23. Much emphasis has been placed on behalf of the appellant on the issue that Smt. Gopi devi performed 'Nata' marriage with one Babu Lal Meena in the year 2007 and the necessary implication of this is that she did not continue to stay as wife of appellant after the dissolution of marriage by caste Panchayat on 17.01.2004. But it is pertinent to note here that none of the plaintiff witnesses could be able to show the whereabouts of aforesaid Babu Lal Meena. They have not been able to depose that where Smt. Gopi Devi is residing with Babu Lal Meena presently. PW-1 Kailash Chand has also admitted that he had not produced the ration card or voter ID card of Smt. Gopi after her 'Nata' marriage to show that with whom and where she is presently residing. Therefore, we are of the view that this 'Nata' marriage does not stand proved. PW-1 Kailash Chand has also admitted that he had not produced the ration card or voter ID card of Smt. Gopi after her 'Nata' marriage to show that with whom and where she is presently residing. Therefore, we are of the view that this 'Nata' marriage does not stand proved. Further, reference has been made to some statements recorded in the criminal proceedings pending between Mangli Devi & Ramjilal u/S. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the judgment passed therein. We do not find that these documents have got any direct bearing upon the matter in issue here, because the aforesaid proceedings were neither between the parties of this case in hand nor the question of 'Nata' marriage between Gopi & Babu Lal was directly in issue in those proceedings. 24. Moreover, the issue regarding 'Nata' marriage between Smt. Gopi Devi and Babu Lal Meena is not of much importance because of the fact that the pertinent issue here is whether the marriage between Smt. Gopi and Kailash Chand Meena was dissolved by way of caste Panchayat dated 17.01.2004 or not. In this regard, statement of DW-1 Gopi is important wherein she has stated that when she was residing with Kailash in her matrimonial home, she got one ration card issued, which is Mark-1. On perusal of the ration card Mark-1, it appears that Gopi Devi w/o. Kailash Meena, aged 27 years was residing at Bishangarh. Voter list dated 27.06.2006 also depicts the same fact. This negates the theory of dissolution of marriage on 17.01.2004 propounded by the plaintiff. 25. Ld. counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that as the marriage between the parties was performed in their childhood at the minor age of 08 & 04 years respectively, ld. trial court must have taken into consideration this fact also to arrive at the conclusion regarding dissolution of marriage. In our considered view, the fact of marriage having been performed in the minor age is of no consequence in this case as both the parties are members of Scheduled Tribe being Meena by caste and therefore, as per sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act of 1955, the provisions of the said Act are not applicable to them. Thus, the conditions for a valid Hindu Marriage envisaged in Sec. 5 of the Act are not relevant to be considered for any purpose. Thus, the conditions for a valid Hindu Marriage envisaged in Sec. 5 of the Act are not relevant to be considered for any purpose. 26. In light of the discussion made above, we find it difficult to accept the plea raised by counsel for the appellant regarding dissolution of marriage on 17.01.2004 by the caste Panchayat and do not find any illegality in the judgment & decree impugned dated 22-5-2014, which may call for any interference at our level. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the appeal and the same is dismissed while upholding the judgment & decree impugned dt. 22.05.2014. No order as to costs.