JUDGMENT : This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2017 passed in O.S.No.06/2015 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru, by which the suit filed by the respondent seeking to declare that the marriage solemnized on 13.05.2014 between the parties as null and void, was allowed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the appellant has filed a false complaint before Kyathasandra Police alleging that the respondent was in love with the appellant since four years; she became pregnant and gave birth to a child on 10.05.2014. Subsequently, the respondent refused to marry her. It is averred that Kyathasandra Police arrested and brought the respondent to police station and forced him to marry the appellant at Mulakattamma Temple of Kyathasandra on 13.05.2014 i.e., immediately three days after appellant giving birth to a child. It is further averred that after the marriage, the respondent lived with the appellant in her parents' house for 3-4 days and left the house without intimating the appellant. It is also averred that under the threat of police, garlands have been exchanged, he never fell in love with the appellant, he has never in any illicit relationship and he is not the father of the child. 3. It is averred that, the respondent got issued the legal notice to the police and the appellant on 28.05.2014 and in spite service of the notice, the appellant neither replied nor withdrew the complaint filed by her. 4. The appellant has entered appearance before the Family Court and filed written statement by denying the allegations made in the plaint. It is averred that there was no force or coercion in the marriage as alleged by the respondent and the notice was sent with an intention to make good of illegal claim in the suit. The suit itself is not maintainable when the respondent has admitted the marriage and he ought to have taken recourse under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The suit itself is not maintainable when the respondent has admitted the marriage and he ought to have taken recourse under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is further averred that the respondent fell in love with the appellant from many years and out of love, intimacy they have developed physical relationship, believing that the respondent would marry her, she continued the physical relationship and she became pregnant and gave birth to child on 10.05.2014 and after the birth of the child, at the intervention of well-wishers the marriage was performed as per the customs. There is no coercion as alleged by the respondent. It is also averred that after the marriage, the respondent left the appellant on 26.05.2014, the appellant lodged missing complaint and on 12.08.2014 gave supplementary complaint against the respondent. It is contended that the DNA test established that respondent is the biological father of the child, viz., Pruthvi. The respondent even though has legally married the appellant, has filed a suit with an intention to cause loss and hardship to the appellant. 5. The Family Court on the basis of pleading and evidence, framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The appellant examined herself as DW.1 and another witness as DW.2 and marked Exs.D-1 to D-6. The respondent examined himself as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-7. The Family Court based on the evidence adduced by the parties vide judgment dated 28.06.2017 decreed the suit in favour of respondent. In the aforesaid factual matrix the present appeal has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent fell in love with the appellant. Out of love and intimacy, they have started physical relationship, the appellant became pregnant and gave birth to a male child on 10.05.2014. Thereafter, the panchayat was held with the intervention of elders and well-wishers, the appellant and respondent have married as per the customs and rituals and the allegation that the parties have exchanged the garlands under the threat of Kyathasandra Police is without any basis. It is submitted that immediately after the marriage, the respondent started living in the appellant's house along with her parents. On 26.05.2014, the appellant had filed a police complaint that the respondent is missing and on 12.08.2014 she gave another supplementary complaint against the respondent. It is submitted that immediately after the marriage, the respondent started living in the appellant's house along with her parents. On 26.05.2014, the appellant had filed a police complaint that the respondent is missing and on 12.08.2014 she gave another supplementary complaint against the respondent. It is further submitted that the DNA test establishes that the respondent is the biological father of the son Pruthvi. It is also submitted that the Family Court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. The case of the respondent before the Family Court was that the appellant has lodged a false complaint before the police and the police have forcibly taken him to the temple and forced him to marry with the appellant on 13.05.2014 by exchanging the garlands. The marriage was performed 3 days after the appellant gave birth to the child. The appellant has denied the allegations made in the Plaint. The parties have reiterated their stand in the affidavit evidence. 8. On careful scrutiny of the pleadings and on meticulous appreciation of evidence, it is evident that the appellant has filed police complaint before the Kyathasandra Police alleging that the respondent had love affair with the appellant, developed physical relationship with the appellant, she became pregnant and gave birth to child on 10.05.2014. The PW.1 and PW.2 in their evidence have deposed that, the respondent has not given any consent for the marriage and the marriage was not as per the customs and rituals as the marriage was performed under the threat and coercion by the Police. 9. The Family Court has given categorical finding that the marriage performed on 13.05.2014 is not a valid marriage and same was not performed as per the Hindu customs and rituals. It has further recorded a finding that Ex.P4 is the certificate issued by the hospital with regard to birth of child on 10.05.2014, whereas alleged marriage was performed on 13.05.2014, immediately three days after the birth of the child. It was further held that the above circumstances establishes that the marriage is not a valid marriage. 10. It has further recorded a finding that Ex.P4 is the certificate issued by the hospital with regard to birth of child on 10.05.2014, whereas alleged marriage was performed on 13.05.2014, immediately three days after the birth of the child. It was further held that the above circumstances establishes that the marriage is not a valid marriage. 10. The Family Court has further recorded finding that Ex.P5 is the copy of the Birth Certificate of the child and the registration of the birth happened on 12.05.2014 and on the very next day of registration, the marriage was performed and in the birth Certificate the name of the father is reflected as Rajanna, however the appellant has failed to establish as to why the name of Rajanna has been entered instead of respondent's name. We do not find any error in the aforesaid finding of the Family Court. 11. The DW.1 and DW.2 the appellant and her brother have deposed that the marriage was performed in the temple and they have produced the photograph to support the said testimony. On bare perusal of the photographs, Ex.D1 and D2 it is evident that only the family members of the appellant are seen in the photographs. If the marriage is performed as per the Hindu customs and Rituals and with the consent of the respondent, the family members, friends and well-wishers of the respondent would have also been present in the marriage ceremony. Based on the photographs produced and the circumstances narrated, an inference can be drawn that the marriage is not a valid marriage performed as per law, customs and rituals. 12. The Family Court has recorded a finding that Forensic report mentioning respondent as the Biological father of the appellant’s child itself would not establish the factum of valid marriage. The Family Court has recorded a finding that the appellant and respondent have never lived together as Husband and Wife and their marriage was not performed as per the Hindu Customs and rituals. We do not find any error in the aforesaid finding. 13. The criminal case filed against the respondent-husband has resulted in acquittal by the Sessions Court, Tumakuru. The alleged marriage was performed on 13.05.2014 immediately after birth of a child by the appellant. Appellant has registered the birth of the child on 12.05.2014 and the name of one Sri. Rajanna has been entered as Father in the birth certificate. 13. The criminal case filed against the respondent-husband has resulted in acquittal by the Sessions Court, Tumakuru. The alleged marriage was performed on 13.05.2014 immediately after birth of a child by the appellant. Appellant has registered the birth of the child on 12.05.2014 and the name of one Sri. Rajanna has been entered as Father in the birth certificate. The aforesaid circumstance creates doubt in the mind of the Court that whether the appellant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage is valid marriage or not. 14. The Family Court on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record has recorded a finding and decreed the suit declaring that the alleged marriage solemnized between the appellant and respondent on 13.05.2014 is null and void. The aforesaid finding does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.