JUDGMENT : Yogendra Kumar Purohit, J 1. By way of instant civil misc. appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 7.7.2022 passed by learned Judge, Family Court No.3, Jodhpur (For short "the Family Court" hereinafter), in Civil Regular Suit No. 655/2017 (73/2020) whereby, an application preferred by the respondent herein under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ("the Act of 1955" hereinafter) has been accepted and the marriage dated 15.9.1997 solemnized between appellant and the respondent is declared void. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. The brief facts giving rise to present appeal as available on record are that on 07.07.2017, the respondent herein Smt. Nivedita preferred an application under Section 12 of the Act of 1955 before the Family Court seeking annulment of child marriage solemnized on 15.9.1997 between her and the appellant Shri Vinod Jyani @ Vipin alleging therein that on 6.6.2017 for the first time, she came to know about her child marriage with the appellant which was solemnized by her parents against their will under the pressure of her younger grand-father Arjunram. It was averred that the child marriage is not acceptable to the respondent and the same be declared void. 4. The appellant contested the said application by filing a reply thereto and denied the allegations leveled by the respondent. It was submitted that the incident of 6.6.2017 as alleged by the respondent is false and imaginary. It was the stand taken by the appellant before the Family Court that so as to bring the matter within limitation, the alleged false incident of 6.6.2017 has been mentioned. 5. Learned Family Court after hearing both the parties and considering the submissions made, accepted the application filed by the respondent and declared the marriage dated 15.9.97 as void. Hence, this appeal. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Family Court has seriously erred in passing the impugned judgment and decree and declaring the marriage as void. It is submitted that it was specific stand of the appellant before the Family Court that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 15.9.1997 with free consent of the guardian of the respondent and the consent was not obtained by putting any kind of undue force. 7. It is submitted that it was specific stand of the appellant before the Family Court that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 15.9.1997 with free consent of the guardian of the respondent and the consent was not obtained by putting any kind of undue force. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent and her parents were having knowledge of child marriage and she could have resorted to the remedy available under the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act for seeking annulment of the child marriage within two years after attaining the age of majority. The respondent attained the age of majority on 5.5.2014, but, she did not take recourse under the provisions of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act within the limitation prescribed. Learned counsel then argued that with a view to bring the case within limitation under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent has created the alleged false and imaginary incident of having knowledge of child marriage for the first time on 6.6.2017 and filed the application for declaring the marriage as void, which as a matter of fact was barred by limitation. Learned counsel submitted that the Family Court did not consider the stand taken by the appellant in correct perspective and thus, grossly erred in allowing the application and declaring the marriage void under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 1955 by the impugned judgment and decree which deserve to be quashed and set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that at the time of solemnization of the marriage of the parties on 15.9.1997, they were minor and parents of the respondent gave consent under the pressure of one Arjunram who is uncle of her father, therefore, the consent was obtained by force. These facts came to the knowledge of the respondent for the first time on 6.6.2017, thereafter, she filed the present application before the Family Court under Section 12 of the Act of 1955 well within time prescribed. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of evidence available on record, the Family Court was fully justified in declaring the child marriage solemnized between the parties as void vide the impugned judgment and decree, which call for no interference by this Court. 9. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of evidence available on record, the Family Court was fully justified in declaring the child marriage solemnized between the parties as void vide the impugned judgment and decree, which call for no interference by this Court. 9. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 10. It is the admitted case of the parties that the marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 15.9.1997 and at that time, both were minor. As per Section 12 (2) (a) (i) of the Act of 1955, no petition for annulling a marriage shall be entertained if the petition is presented more than one year after the force had ceased to operate. Meaning thereby, after ceasure of the force, within one year, a petition seeking annulment of marriage can be filed. In the instant case, there is clear cut deposition of the respondent (PW-1) that on 6.6.2017 for the first time she had knowledge of her child marriage with the appellant which was solemnized by her parents under the pressure of uncle of her father Arjunram. The said deposition of the respondent (PW-1) is fully corroborated by the testimony of her father Jalaram (PW-2). There is no evidence on record that prior to 6.6.2017, the respondent had the knowledge of her child marriage with the appellant. Thus, we do not find any substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the application filed by the respondent was barred by limitation. In our considered view, the Family Court was justified in declaring the child marriage as void under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 1955. The detailed and reasoned judgment passed by the learned Family Court being based on sound and proper appreciation of the evidence available on record does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality and the same warrants no interference by this Court. 11. In view of the discussion made herein above, we find no force in this appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.