Short Note : 1. The appeal arises out of a petition instituted by the respondent against the appellant under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter called the Act, for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner's case was that he was married to the appellant eight or ten years ago, that about seven years ago the appellant left the marital home without any reasonable cause and has thus withdrawn from the society of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. The petition was resisted by the appellant. She admitted that she was married to the petitioner as alleged, but contended that soon after the marriage, when she went to reside with the petitioner, she was treated with cruelty. It was alleged that the petitioner often used to beat her and it was due to the timely action taken by her father that she was rescued from the petitioner's house with the aid of the police. It was also contended that a criminal case was instituted against the petitioner for having assaulted the appellant and the petitioner was convicted by the Court. The learned trial Judge found that the appellant failed to prove that she was treated with cruelty by the petitioner. The trial Court, therefore, held that as the appellant had withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without any reasonable excuse, the petitioner was entitled to the relief prayed for. Held: The short question for consideration, therefore, is whether the appellant has substantiated her allegations against the petitioner that she was being treated with such cruelty as would justify her conduct in withdrawing from the society of the petitioner. In order to prove cruelty, the appellant examined herself. She stated on oath that immediately after the marriage, when she went to stay with the petitioner, the petitioner started beating her. She also stated that she wrongfully confined in a room and subjected to starvation. The fact that the appellant was assaulted by the petitioner is corroborated by Ex. D/I, the judgment passed in Cr.C.No. 70 of 1970 by the Magistrate. First Class, Sanwer, whereby the petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under section 323 IPC for having caused hurt to the appellant. The fact that the appellant was assaulted by the petitioner is corroborated by Ex. D/I, the judgment passed in Cr.C.No. 70 of 1970 by the Magistrate. First Class, Sanwer, whereby the petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under section 323 IPC for having caused hurt to the appellant. The petitioner no doubt denied in the witness-box that he had assaulted the appellant but his testimony cannot be relied upon in view of his admission that he was convicted by the Magistrate, First Class, Sanwer, and that the appellant was rescued from his house pursuant to a search warrant The learned trial Judge disbelieved the testimony of the appellant on the ground that she failed to disclose the reason which prompted her husband, the petitioner to beat her. This ground, however, in our opinion, is not sufficient to disbelieve the testimony of the appellant especially when she is corroborated by the judgment Ex. D/I. It was not necessary for the appellant to prove the intention of the petitioner in beating her.