ORDER : A. S. BOPANNA, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. K. Kalita, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The appellant/husband is before this court assailing the judgment dated 29.07.2016, passed by the District Judge, Chirang, Kajalgaon, in Title Suit (D) No. 51/2015. By the said judgment, the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13(1)(i) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”) was dismissed. The appellant, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved by the same, is before this court in this appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.08.1983. From the marriage, a male child was born on 11.12.1984. When this was the position, the appellant herein filed a petition in the year 2015 seeking dissolution of marriage. The case, as put forth in the petition, was that the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized against his will at the behest of some local people. In that view it was contended by the appellant that the marriage was not consummated and, in that circumstance, had contended that the respondent herein had deserted the appellant and also an allegation was made with regard to adultery that had been committed by the respondent due to which the same amounted to mental cruelty and in that light had sought for dissolution of the marriage. The respondent, who had appeared in the proceedings, had filed written statement. Though the marriage was admitted, it was denied that the marriage was forced upon the parties and the allegation of desertion as well as cruelty was disputed by the respondent. The court below, having taken into consideration the rival contentions, had framed six issues for consideration, which read as herein below: “(1) Whether the petitioner was compelled to marry the respondent on the gunpoint out of fear of his life ? (2) Whether the petitioner and the respondent have been living separately since the day of their marriage ? (3) Whether the respondent has been living in adultery even after marriage as alleged by the petitioner ? (4) Whether the respondent has been treated with cruelty by the petitioner and she has been compelled to leave the house of her husband due to such cruelty ? (5) Whether the petitioner has deserted the respondent ? (3) Whether the respondent has been living in adultery even after marriage as alleged by the petitioner ? (4) Whether the respondent has been treated with cruelty by the petitioner and she has been compelled to leave the house of her husband due to such cruelty ? (5) Whether the petitioner has deserted the respondent ? (6) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the decree as prayed for ?” 4. The appellant herein, in his attempt to prove the allegation and to discharge the burden that had been cast upon him, had examined himself as PW1 and examined his brother as PW2. Both the witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the respondent. The respondent did not choose to tender evidence. In that light, the court below, having taken into consideration the evidence that had been tendered, was of the opinion that the appellant had not been able to prove the case based on the issues that had been framed. 5. In the above background, having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the appeal papers. 6. It is seen that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 was in the form of affidavit which, essentially, was reiteration of the averments in the petition that was filed. Though Issue No. 1 was considered in detail by the court below, with regard to the allegation made by the appellant herein that he was compelled to marry the respondent at gun point, out of fear of life, in our opinion, detail appreciation of that aspect of the matter in a petition filed under Section 13(1)(i) and (i-b) would not be wholly necessary. This is for the reason that even if such allegation is to be proved, the contention with regard to the nullity of the marriage was required to be alleged and a petition under Section 12 of the Act was also required to be instituted. The fact of the marriage having been solemnized between the parties on 28.08.1983 is the admitted position and a male child is also born on 11.12.1984 out of the marriage between the parties. In such event, the allegation of forced marriage would lose its relevance. 7. In that background, the only issue that would arise for consideration is as to whether the allegation of mental cruelty and desertion, as alleged in the petition, were proved. In such event, the allegation of forced marriage would lose its relevance. 7. In that background, the only issue that would arise for consideration is as to whether the allegation of mental cruelty and desertion, as alleged in the petition, were proved. The averments made in the petition to the effect that the respondent herein had deserted the appellant are reiterated in the evidence of the appellant, who was examined as PW1, wherein it was also alleged that the respondent had illicit relations with several persons and, therefore, had committed adultery. Except for the bald statements made in the petition and the evidence of PW1, filed by way of affidavit, no other evidence of any other witnesses is on record to indicate such conduct of the respondent so as to claim that such act of the respondent inflicted mental cruelty on the appellant. In so far as the allegation relating to desertion, the court below, on carefully analyzing the evidence, has arrived at the conclusion that the fact that the appellant has entered into another marriage is evident from the records and, in that light, the allegation of desertion against the respondent would not arise. In that regard, the evidence tendered by PW2 has also been referred to by the court below to indicate that the appellant herein has been, thereafter, staying in Guwahati with his family since 1984. This would indicate that the appellant, in fact, had deserted the respondent. Further, the PW2 has admitted in his cross-examination that the appellant had married one Aloka Rajbangshi in the year 1985. The said admission of PW2 in his cross-examination would be sufficient to nullify both the grounds taken by the appellant in his petition filed under Section13(1)(i) and (i-b) and in a matter of the present nature, where there is no other evidence available on record, it is seen that the court below, while answering the issues, has referred to the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and on analyzing the issues, has arrived at the conclusion that the case, as put forth, has not been proved. 8. On re-appreciation of such evidence in this appeal, when we do not see any reason to defer from the reasons rendered by the court below, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the court below does not call for interference. 9. 8. On re-appreciation of such evidence in this appeal, when we do not see any reason to defer from the reasons rendered by the court below, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the court below does not call for interference. 9. In that view, the appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 10. The order dated 11.01.2017 passed in this appeal indicates that the appellant was directed to deposit the litigation cost of Rs. 11,000.00 before this court. The said amount shall now be released to the respondent.