JUDGMENT : G.A. SANAP, J. The appellant/original respondent filed this appeal under section 19 of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 against the Judgment and order dated 30-8-2018, passed by the Family Court, Amravati, whereby the learned Judge of the Family Court had allowed the petition filed by the respondent No. 1/original petitioner and declared so called marriage of the respondent No. 1 and appellant as null and void and further declared the status of the respondent No. 1 as ‘Maiden’ and not married. 2. The Cross Objection No. 75 of 2021 is filed by Mr. Mahesh Dinkar Deshmukh, who was examined as a witness for the appellant/respondent. He has challenged the judgment and order to the extent of direction No. 4(iv) mentioned in the operative part of the order. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : The respondent No. 1 is a Hindu girl. The appellant is the Mahomedan boy. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that they reside in the same locality. The sister of appellant by name Likhita was the friend of respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 used to visit the house of Likhita. The appellant and the respondent No. 1 came into contact at the house of the appellant. The appellant developed intimacy with the respondent No. 1. The appellant gave a proposal for marriage to the respondent No. 1. The respondent No.1 refused the same. The appellant, therefore, got annoyed. He abused the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1, therefore, dis-continued her relations. However, at the instance of sister of the appellant the respondent No. 1 continued to visit the house of the appellant. It is further case of the respondent No. 1 that in the month of January-2012, she wanted to obtain the driving licence. The appellant came to know about this fact from his sister Likhita and therefore, contacted the respondent No. 1. He collected the documents from the respondent No. 1 namely Ration Card, Identity card issued by D.Ed. College, Passport size photo etc. After obtaining the driving licence he did not return the documents. It is further case of the respondent No. 1 that the appellant continued to harass the respondent No. 1. On 19-4-2012, the appellant met the respondent No. 1 and her elder sister near Asmita Vidya Mandir, Amravati. He misbehaved with them. College, Passport size photo etc. After obtaining the driving licence he did not return the documents. It is further case of the respondent No. 1 that the appellant continued to harass the respondent No. 1. On 19-4-2012, the appellant met the respondent No. 1 and her elder sister near Asmita Vidya Mandir, Amravati. He misbehaved with them. When the sister of the respondent No. 1 told the appellant to behave properly with the respondent No. 1, the appellant disclosed that the respondent No. 1 is his married wife. He disclosed that they got married on 7-4-2012 at Chandrakala Vivah Mandal, Amravati. 4. The respondent No. 1 and her sister were shocked after getting this information. They went to Chandrakala Vivah Mandal, Amravati to make inquiry of the fact as disclosed by the appellant. The respondent No. 1 came to know that her documents were misused and the appellant obtained the forged marriage certificate from the said Chandrakala Vivah Mandal. On further inquiry made by the respondent No. 1, it revealed that the appellant had also obtained some documents related to the respondent No. 1 from Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Amravati. The respondent No. 1 informed this fact to her parents. The report was lodged against the appellant. The appellant started extending threats to the respondent No. 1 and her family members. He threatened the respondent No. 1 and her family members that he would give wide publicity to their marriage and create hurdles in the way of marriage of elder sister of the respondent No. 1. According to the respondent No. 1, the appellant with the help of other people forged the Nikahnama and marriage certificate. The respondent No. 1 is Hindu by birth. She was never converted to Islam religion. She never married with the appellant. She, therefore, prayed for a declaration that so called marriage was null and void and also for declaration that her status is a ‘Maiden’ and not married. 5. The appellant filed the written statement and opposed the petition filed by the respondent No. 1. He denied the material facts pleaded in the petition. He has denied that he collected and misused the documents of the respondent No. 1, as alleged. It is the case of the appellant that on 7-4-2012 he got married with the respondent No. 1 with her free consent. They had love affair. They decided to marry. He denied the material facts pleaded in the petition. He has denied that he collected and misused the documents of the respondent No. 1, as alleged. It is the case of the appellant that on 7-4-2012 he got married with the respondent No. 1 with her free consent. They had love affair. They decided to marry. However, the respondent No. 1 suggested that they should marry secretly so that it could not become hurdle in the way of the marriage of her elder sister. Accordingly, they went to Chandrakala Vivah Mandal. The respondent No. 1 was converted to Islam religion in the presence of Quazi. The marriage between appellant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized as per the Muslim religion. The marriage was registered. The parents of the respondent No. 1 came to know about the marriage. They questioned the respondent No. 1 about it. They pressurize the respondent No. 1 to make false complaint against the appellant. According to the appellant, the respondent No. 1 is his legally married wife. On these averments, he opposed the prayer made in the petition filed by the respondent No. 1. 6. The learned Judge of the Family Court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record came to the conclusion that so called marriage between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 was not valid and legal. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order has come before this Court in appeal. 7. The learned Judge of the Family Court while appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that the Chandrakala Vivah Mandal managed by the respondent No. 2, was not authorized to solemnize and register the marriage. The learned Judge of the Family Court made strong observations against the respondent No. 2 and directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and Chairman of the same to hold the inquiry and take strict action for professional misconduct against the respondent No. 2 – Adv. Mahesh Dinkar Deshmukh. Being aggrieved by this part of the judgment and order, respondent No. 2 has filed the cross objection. 8. We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. We have gone through the record and proceedings. 9. In view of the fact and circumstances, following point falls for our determination. Sr. No. Point Finding 1. Mahesh Dinkar Deshmukh. Being aggrieved by this part of the judgment and order, respondent No. 2 has filed the cross objection. 8. We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. We have gone through the record and proceedings. 9. In view of the fact and circumstances, following point falls for our determination. Sr. No. Point Finding 1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court declaring the so called marriage dated 7-4-2012 between the appellant and respondent is null and void and the status of the respondent is ‘Maiden’ and not married is sustainable ? …… In the affirmative 2. What Order ? -As per final order- AS TO POINT NO. 1 : 10. The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Judge of the Family Court has failed to appreciate and consider the voluminous oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant. The evidence adduced by the appellant is sufficient to prove that he and respondent No. 1 got married as per the Islam religion. In the submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant the evidence of Maulavi/Quazi has been discarded without assigning convincing reasons. The documentary evidence of the performance of the marriage and the registration of the marriage produced by the appellant through Maulavi/Quazi is unassailable. The learned Advocate submitted that there was no reason to discard and disbelieve the evidence of the independent witnesses much less, without assigning cogent reasons. The learned Advocate submitted that the admissions given in writing by the respondent No. 1 in the consent terms filed during the pendency of the petition has not been considered by the learned Judge of the Family Court. 11. The learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the learned Judge of the Family Court has not believed the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant. In the submission of the learned Advocate, the oral and documentary evidence even if appreciated in proper prospective would not be sufficient to establish the factum of marriage between the appellant and respondent No. 1. He submitted that the oral and documentary evidence is not only self contradictory but also doubtful to establish the factum of the marriage. The marriage, in the submission of the learned Advocate has to be proved by leading cogent evidence. He submitted that the oral and documentary evidence is not only self contradictory but also doubtful to establish the factum of the marriage. The marriage, in the submission of the learned Advocate has to be proved by leading cogent evidence. The learned Advocate submitted that according to the case of the appellant himself, the two witnesses present at the time of the marriage were Hindu by religion. The learned Advocate pointed out that as per section 252 of the Mahomedan Law the presence of two male or one male and two female witnesses, who must be sane and adult Mahomedans is mandatory. There is non-fulfillment of this requirement. As far as the respondent No. 2-Adv. Mahesh Deshmukh is concerned, the learned Advocate submitted that the material on record was sufficient to issue the direction against the respondent No. 2. 12. The learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2/cross objector submitted that the respondent No. 2 came before the Court as a witness to testify about the marriage of the appellant and respondent No. 1. The learned Advocate submitted that on the basis of his evidence, the Court could have decided only the fact in issue namely the validity of the marriage between the appellant and respondent No. 1. The learned Advocate submitted that the observations made against the respondent No. 2 in the judgment and the order passed against him is without granting him an opportunity of hearing. The learned Advocate submitted that it is a fundamental rule of law that a person cannot be condemned without giving him an opportunity of hearing. 13. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, we have gone through the record and proceedings. We have also gone through the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court. It is apparent on the face of the record that the learned Judge of the Family Court discarded the evidence adduced by the appellant to establish the factum of the marriage. There is serious doubt about the conversion of the religion of the respondent No. 1. It is pertinent to mention that the marriage of a Hindu Woman with a Mahomedan man without conversion to Islam religion is not void-ab-initio. It could only be said to be an irregularity. There is serious doubt about the conversion of the religion of the respondent No. 1. It is pertinent to mention that the marriage of a Hindu Woman with a Mahomedan man without conversion to Islam religion is not void-ab-initio. It could only be said to be an irregularity. The learned Judge of the Family Court has not given any weightage to this aspect while deciding the petition in favour of the respondent No. 1. The learned Judge of the Family Court recorded a finding that there is no concrete and convincing evidence to establish factum of alleged marriage between the appellant and the respondent No. 1. In order to prove the factum of the marriage the appellant has testified himself before the Family Court. He has also examined Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh to corroborate his evidence that the marriage was performed in Chandrakala Vivah Mandal which is run by Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh and the marriage certificate was issued by Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh. The evidence of Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh and the documents produced on record with regard to the registration of the Chandrakala Vivah Mandal and the marriage certificate were found to be unacceptable by the learned Judge of the Family Court. The learned Judge of the Family Court on the basis of the evidence of Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh and the documents produced by him as well as by the Deputy Charity Commissioner and by the Sub-Registrar came to the conclusion that on the date of the marriage the registration certificate of the Chandrakala Vivah Mandal was not renewed. On going through the record and the evidence, we are convinced that Chandrakala Vivah Mandal was neither registered on the date of the marriage nor such Vivah Mandal was empowered to issue the Marriage Certificate. On this count, we do not see any reason to disturb the well reasoned finding of the learned Judge of the Family Court. 14. It is pertinent to note that the moment existence of Chandrakala Vivah Mandal on the date of so called marriage is found illegal, the very basis of the case of the appellant falls to the ground. Besides the legal existence of the Chandrakala Vivah Mandal the learned Judge of the Family Court took into consideration the oral evidence of the appellant, the witness to the marriage -Ashish Krishnarao Raut (RW-4) and Maulvi Ahmedulla Shamshershah (RW-3). Besides the legal existence of the Chandrakala Vivah Mandal the learned Judge of the Family Court took into consideration the oral evidence of the appellant, the witness to the marriage -Ashish Krishnarao Raut (RW-4) and Maulvi Ahmedulla Shamshershah (RW-3). The learned Advocate for the appellant mainly relied upon the Consent Terms at Exh.14 and Petition No. F-312 of 2013 filed by the appellant and respondent No. 1 in the Family Court at Amravati and the cross-examination of the respondent No. 1. The learned Judge in the backdrop of the other evidence on record, recorded the finding that much weightage cannot be given to these documents. In our opinion, the learned Judge was right in recording this finding. We propose to deal with this evidence after considering the other evidence adduced by the appellant to substantiate his contentions. 15. It is undisputed that, on record there are three Nikahnamas. Exh. 79 is the certificate of marriage issued from Chandrakala Vivah Mandal by Adv. Mahesh Deshmukh (witness No. 2). The learned Judge of the Family Court has discarded this certificate being illegal. Exh. 80 is the carbon copy of the Nikahnama. Exh. 101 is the photocopy of the Nikahnama. Exh. 102 is one more Carbon copy of the Nikahnama. According to the appellant and witness No. 3-Maulavi/Quazi, Exh.121 is the original Nikahnama. The Nikahnamas at Exh. 80 and 102 are the carbon copies of original Nikahnama at Exh. 121. The Nikahnama at Exh. 121 was produced by Maulavi/Quazi (witness No. 3). The Maulavi/Quazi has admitted in his cross-examination that the signature columns of Quazi in carbon copies of Nikahnama at Exh.80 and 102 are blank. He has categorically admitted that his signature is not there on Exh. 80 and 102. Similarly, he has admitted that in the column pertaining to the Meher amount in Exh. 80, 102 and 121 there is no signature of the respondent No. 1. He has admitted that the separate register of recording of Nikahnama is maintained by Maulavi/Quazi. He has admitted that the registration number has not been mentioned in Nikahnamas at Exh. 80, 102 and 121. He has admitted in para 9 of his cross-examination that on the documents prepared by Adv. Mahesh Deshmukh, he signed as a priest on the say of Adv. Mahesh Deshmukh. He has admitted that the registration number has not been mentioned in Nikahnamas at Exh. 80, 102 and 121. He has admitted in para 9 of his cross-examination that on the documents prepared by Adv. Mahesh Deshmukh, he signed as a priest on the say of Adv. Mahesh Deshmukh. The learned Judge of the Family Court has made thorough analysis of this evidence and recorded the findings that this Nikahnama is not at all acceptable. 16. It is pertinent to mention that the copy of the original Nikahnama ought to have been given either to the appellant or to the respondent No. 1. The witness No. 3 was not supposed to keep the original Nikahnama with him. So this fact is very vital. This fact creates doubt about the genuineness of this Nikahnama at Exh. 121. The witness No. 3 has deposed that appellant, respondent No. 1, two witnesses and he made the signatures on the Nikahnama. He has admitted that Exh.80 and 102 are the carbon copies of the Nikahnama. In Exh.121, witness No. 3 has made signatures in two columns. The said two columns meant for the signature of the Maulavi/Quazi are blank from the carbon copies of the Nikahnama at Exh.80 and 102. The learned Judge of the Family Court on comparison of the signatures of the Maulavi/ Quazi from the Nikahnama and from other documents recorded a finding that the signatures do not match. It is pertinent to mention that if the original Nikahnama was signed by Quazi (RW-3) then his signature ought to have been copied on the carbon copies of Nikahnama. There is no explanation about it. In our view, therefore, the evidence of witness No. 1, witness No. 2, witness No. 3 and witness No. 4, if read with the Nikahnamas, it would show that the same creates doubt about the factum of the marriage itself. The cloud of suspicion is therefore, created as to the credibility of the Nikahnamas. 17. It would be necessary to consider the document at Exh.14. It is true that this document was prepared before the marriage counselor when the parties was referred, in the marriage petition, by the learned Judge, to the Counselor. The learned Judge has observed that in respect of such document the great confidentiality is required to be maintained. The grounds of failure of the settlement/conciliation cannot be made public. It is true that this document was prepared before the marriage counselor when the parties was referred, in the marriage petition, by the learned Judge, to the Counselor. The learned Judge has observed that in respect of such document the great confidentiality is required to be maintained. The grounds of failure of the settlement/conciliation cannot be made public. The respondent No. 1 has admitted about these documents. However, since, the petition was filed by her, it was natural for her to get rid of all the problems. Therefore, creation of such documents in the process of conciliation in good faith cannot be used against the parties. The evidence of Maulavi/Quazi (Witness No. 3), the evidence of Adv. Mahesh Deshmukh(Witness No. 2) and the evidence of witness No. 4, who allegedly acted as a witness to the marriage, on minute perusal cannot be said to be reliable. The existence of Chandrakala Vivah Mandal has been proved to be illegal. The record of the inquiry is part of the record. The evidence of the witnesses if read in juxta position with the Nikahnama, it would show that it does not inspire confidence. We have noticed glaring illegalities and drawbacks in the documents. Such drawbacks are not expected if the documents were prepared as stated by the appellant. In our view, therefore, it is not possible to accept the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. The submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents are fully supported by the material on record and as such acceptable. 18. The learned Judge of the Family Court has issued more than one directions to the authorities. The respondent No. 2/crossobjector seems to have been aggrieved by the direction No. 4 (iv). The learned Advocate submitted that the respondent No. 2/crossobjector has been condemned without giving him an opportunity. It is pertinent to note that the learned Judge has issued direction to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to hold the inquiry and take strict action for professional misconduct against Adv. Mahesh Deshmukh. In our view, the initiation of inquiry and action for professional misconduct would be the matter within the exclusive domain of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. The learned Judge was, therefore, not expected to issue such direction. Mahesh Deshmukh. In our view, the initiation of inquiry and action for professional misconduct would be the matter within the exclusive domain of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. The learned Judge was, therefore, not expected to issue such direction. The learned Judge could have simply made observations and referred the issue to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Instead the learned Judge issued direction. According to us, this direction cannot be sustained. The observations can be made and the matter can be referred to the appropriate authority for taking actions according to law. In our view to this extent the direction is required to be set aside and modified. In view of this, we conclude that the cross-objection deserves to be allowed in the above said terms. 19. It is seen on perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court that several directions were issued such as 4(i), (ii), (iii) and (v), which reads as under : “(i) The Deputy Charity Commissioner, Amravati for making due inquiry and taking legal action against the Late Smt. Chandrakala Deshmukh Charitable Trust and trustee Shri Mahesh Dinkar Deshmukh, Advocate as per provisions of Law and for submitting report to this Court within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (ii) The Registrar General, Birth, Death and Marriages, Pune for making due inquiry for sanction as per section 13 and filing compliant as per section 12(2) of Maharashtra Regulations of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriages Act, 1998 and for submitting report to this Court within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (iii) The Marriage Registrar, Zone No. 3, Municipal Corporation, Amravati for making due inquiry and cancel the registration of Chandrakala Vivah Mandal, Vijay Colony, Rukhmini Nagar, Amravati as per procedure of Law and intimate this Court immediately. (v) The Commissioner of Police, Amravati with directions to do the investigation and find out whether any such other illegal marriage bureaus are functioning in the City of Amravati and if found then to intimate the same to concerned authority and to take proper legal action against them and directed to submit report to this Court within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.” 20. The record of the appeal would further show that this Court (Coram: P. N. Deshmukh and Pushpa V. Ganediwala, JJ) vide order dated 28-1-2020 had directed the Registrar (Judicial) to call the report of these authorities. Perusal of the appeal shows that pursuant to the communication dated 28-1-2020 the Marriage Registrar (Zone-3), Municipal Corporation, Amravati has taken the necessary action. The registrar has reported that the recognition and registration of Chandrakala Vivah Mandal is canceled. It is therefore seen that the direction No. 4(iii) stands complied with. Perusal of the record of the appeal would show that there is no report from other authorities on record with regard to the compliance of the remaining directions. It would therefore, necessary to state that the Registrar (Judicial) would be required to ensure the compliance of this order dated 28-1-2020. Hence, point No. 1 is answered in the affirmative. In view of the above, in answer to point No. 2 we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER i] The family Court appeal stands dismissed. ii] The judgment of the Family Court dated 30-8-2018 in Petition No. A-107/2012, granting declaration as regards the alleged marriage between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 to be null and void and declaring the status of the respondent No. 1 as ‘Maiden’, is upheld. iii] The Cross Objection is partly allowed. iv] The direction No. 4(iv) of the aforesaid judgment is set aside. It is however clarified that the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa is free to take appropriate steps in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in the judgment against the Cross-Objector in Cross Objection No. 75/2021. v] The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to ensure the compliance of the directions contained in Para No. 4(i), (ii) and (v) of the operative part of the order passed by the Judge Family Court vide Judgment and order dated 30-8-2018 in Petition No. A-107/2012. The parties shall bear their own costs. The family Court appeal and cross objection stand disposed of, in the above terms.