JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated December 17, 1981, whereby the appellant's petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), was dismissed. 2. The petitioner-appellant Mst. Meera presented a petition on 21-11-1980 for divorce alleging that she was married to the non-petitioner-respondent Purshottam some 21 years age (that is on Pos Sudi 3, St. 2034, as in evidence). She lived with her husband at Barmer for more than a year and during her stay at her in laws' house. She was not behaved properly. She was tortured and her husband used to say to her that she will have to commit with his father Dhoklaram, that is, the petitioner's father-in-law. When she refused for it, her husband and her mother-in-law and her father-in-law started beating her and misbehaving with her. When her brother Bhuraram had come to see her, she narrated the matter to him. Thereupon, he protested to her husband and to her father-in law and they refused to send her along with Bhuraram. Thereafter her brothers Vajja and Bhuraram came to fetch her. Thereupon she was sent with them to her father's house. It was also alleged that the petitioner's father-in-law instituted a false case under Sections 366 and 406, I.P.C., against her and her father and brothers, in which the police gave a final report. Thus, on the ground of physical and mental cruelty, the petitioner sought a decree for divorce. 3. In the reply filed by the non-petitioner-husband, the allegations regarding his behaviour and maltreatment, physical and mental cruelty, were traversed and it was alleged that the petitioner went along with her father and brothers against the wishes of the non-petitioner after taking her own ornaments and clothes and also the ornaments of the petitioner's mother, for which the non-petitioner's father instituted a case. The same is pending before the judicial Magistrate, Barmer. It was further averred that the non-petitioner treated the petitioner very well. The allegation regarding any protest having been made by Bhuraram, was denied, as there was no occasion for it. It was further alleged that this petition for divorce is presented only with an intention to devour the ornaments and clothes taken by the petitioner. In the end it was prayed that the petition may be dismissed. 4. The allegation regarding any protest having been made by Bhuraram, was denied, as there was no occasion for it. It was further alleged that this petition for divorce is presented only with an intention to devour the ornaments and clothes taken by the petitioner. In the end it was prayed that the petition may be dismissed. 4. The learned District judge framed three issues and thereafter recorded the evidence of the parties. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner Meera examined herself as A.W. I and produced Bholaram (A.W. 2), Gurnaram (A.W. 3), Shanker (A.W. 4) Anraram (A.W. 5) and Bhuraram (A.W.6). In rebuttal the non-petitioner examined (N.A.W. 1), Shivlal (N.A.W. 2), Jugtarain (N.A.W. 3), Nimbaram (N.A.W. 4), Purshottam (N.A.W. 5) and Dhoklaram (N.A.W. 6). After hearing the parties, the learned District judge decided issue No. 1 and 2 against the petitioner and consequently dismissed the petition. Dis-satisfied with the judgment and decree of the learned District judge, the petitioner has filed this appeal. 5. I have heard Shri J. R. Tatia, learned counsel for the wife-appellant and Shri M. L. Shrimali, learned counsel for the husband-respondent. 6. In this appeal Mr. J. R. Tatia, learned counsel for the appellant, assailed the finding on issue No. I and urged that the evidence has not been correctly appreciated by the learned trial judge. He submitted that from the evidence on record, it is amply proved that the petitioner Mst. Meera was used to he given beating and thrashing and was maltreated, misbehaved and tortured and not only that, even she was asked by the non-petitioner-husband to cohabit with her aged father-in-law, so much so that forcibly cohabitation was done with her by her father-in-law during her stay at her in-laws house on 3-4 occasions. He submitted that physical cruelty meted out to the petitioner, is proved by the statement of the petitioner herself and the statement of Bholaram (A.W. 2), and so far as the fact of insistence regarding cohabitation with her father-in-law is concerned, this misbehaviour is proved by the statement of Meera which gets corroboration from the testimony of Gurnaram (A.W. 3) and Shanker (A.\V. 4) and the statement of the petitioner's father Anraram (A.W. 5) and Bhuraram (A.W. 6). Mr. Tatia pointed out that the accusation levelled against Dhoklaram i3 admitted by Dhokla ram himself, although he says that the accusation levelled against him is false. Mr. Tatia pointed out that the accusation levelled against Dhoklaram i3 admitted by Dhokla ram himself, although he says that the accusation levelled against him is false. This matter of accusation also came in the Panchayat, which was called for settlement of the dispute between the parties, but as there was no repentance on the part of Dhoklaram, rather he asserted to continue the same habit, so the Panchayat failed, as would be evident from the statements of the independent Panchas Gurnaram (A.W. 3) and Shanker (A.W. 4). Bhuraram is the mist material witness in the case. He is related to both the parties. Dhoklaram's daughter is married to him and Meera is the sister of Bliuraram, being his uncle's daughter. Shri Tatia pointed out that there was no reason for Bhuraram to have appeared against his own father-in-law and brother-in law. So in this state of evidence, the findings arrived at by the trial court, are erroneous and based on incorrect and mis-appreciation of evidence. 7. It may be stated that the question relating to physical and mental cruelty in the present case is required to be determined from the oral evidence, produced by the parties. Oral evidence produced by the parties, is required to be weighed. The intrinsic and inherent worth and the credibility of the testimonies is to be tested on the touch stone of probabilities and the evidence is further to be appreciated on the touch stone of consistency in the statements of the various witnesses. I think it proper to consider the evidence in two aspects, (1) with regard to physical cruelty in the form of beating and thrashing, said to have been given to the petitioner Afeera, and (2) with regard to accusation levelled against Dhoklaram for insisting forcible co-habitation with Mst. Meera. 8. So far as the first aspect is concerned, Mst. Meera's statement is to the effect that she was being beaten by her husband and by her father-in-law. She used to refuse to cohabit with her father-in-law. According to her, she was given beating at the interval of 2-3 days and the severity was such that her bones used to pain so much so that they still pain and she cannot even lift the water utensils. According to her, when Bholaram came to Barmer, she narrated the entire matter to him. According to her, she was given beating at the interval of 2-3 days and the severity was such that her bones used to pain so much so that they still pain and she cannot even lift the water utensils. According to her, when Bholaram came to Barmer, she narrated the entire matter to him. In her cross-examination she stated that during her stay for 12 months, her brother used to come to see her and he came 3.4 times. Once she had a talk with him, while he was proceeding on the way and at other time he stayed at her house. She told her brother that she is in trouble at her in-laws house. She is being beaten by her husband, her father-in-law and mother-in-law. There are injuries on her back and her whole body pains and she showed her injuries to her brother. According to her she was given beating on the very first night and in that beating her clothes got torn and she was stripped. How far her statement gets corroboration from the evidence on record, is now to be seen. 9. Bholaram (A.W. 2) poses himself to be an eye witness of thrashing, inconsistent to what Meera has deposed. Meera has no where stated that her beating was ever witnessed by Bholaram. On the contrary her statement is that when Bholaram came to Barmer, she narrated the whole matter to him. Bholaram is a resident of Balotra. His sister is married at Barmer and in connection with seeing his sister, he used to visit Barmer. In his cross-examination Bholaram has stated that he visited the house of Meera in the evening and he observed that she was being beaten with slaps and fists and Meera was crying and raising shrieks. Number of people assembled from the neighbourhood. In further cross-examination he has stated that he has seen Meera being beaten at Birmer on 2-3 occasions. This witness appears to be a liar. His statement does not find corroboration from the statement of Meera, as Mecra has not stated that her beating was ever witnessed by Bholaram. Although, Bholaram stated that when he went to see Mst. Meera. Meera did tell that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law beat her. This witness appears to be a liar. His statement does not find corroboration from the statement of Meera, as Mecra has not stated that her beating was ever witnessed by Bholaram. Although, Bholaram stated that when he went to see Mst. Meera. Meera did tell that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law beat her. This statement he gave in his examination-in-chief, but he did not remain satisfied with this statement, so in his cross-examination he turned himself to be an eye witness of the incidents of beating. 10. Shanker (A.W. 4) in his cross-examination stated that when Meera came to her father's house, he did not see as to whether there were any injuries on the person of' Meera. Amrararn, the petitioner's father, has also started in his cross-examination that when Meera came to his house, she had not come with injuries on her person, nor he observed any injuries on the person of Meera and so no signs or marks of injuries were seen by him. Even Bhuraram (A.W. 6) does not support. In the last line of his cross-examination Bhuraram (A.W. 6) has stated that he saw no injuries on Meera. Contrary to that Meera has stated that she had exhibited her injuries to her brother. The statement of Mst. Meera, thus, does not get corroboration from the statements of Amra Ram, her father, Bhuraram, her brother, Shanker resident of Newai and neighbour of Amraram and the testimony of Bholaram is incredible being inconsistent with the testimony of Mst. Meera. The testimony of Mst. Meera, may further be examined in the light of probabilities, as well. If Mst Meera was severely thrashed on the first day after the marriage and when beating was given to her at intervals of 2-3 days, she would not have continued to live continuously fer more than twelve months and she would have accompanied her brother, when her brother first visited her and when her brother had an occasion to talk to her for the first time. Thus, the conduct of Mst. Meera belies her plea of meeting out physical cruelty to her by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. It is significant to note that no neighbour of Dhoklaram has been examined, nor any other witness of Barmer has been produced by the petitioner. If the petitioner would have been given severe thrashing, marks of injuries would have appeared on her person. Meera belies her plea of meeting out physical cruelty to her by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. It is significant to note that no neighbour of Dhoklaram has been examined, nor any other witness of Barmer has been produced by the petitioner. If the petitioner would have been given severe thrashing, marks of injuries would have appeared on her person. There is no corroborating medical evidence in the present case. So far as the evidence of the non-petitioner is concerned it may be stated that there is a complete denial by Purshottam (N.A.W. 3) and Dhoklaram (N.A.W. 6). The non-petitioner examined one neighbour imbaram (N.A.W. 4), who has stated that his house is situated near the house of Dhoklaram. He did not see any quarrel, nor heard any shrieks etc. coming from the house of Dhokla-ram. He also stated that Meera never complained to him or other neighbours about beating. He stated that he lives in front of Dhoklaram. Thus, on the basis of the evidence on record, as discussed above, in my opinion, it is not proved that Meera was given beating and thrashing by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. 11. I may now take up the second aspect of the case. 12. Meera has levelled a very grave accusation against her father-in-law, in which, according to her, there was complicity of her husband, as well. Not only her father-in-law demanded from her to have co-habitation with him, rather her own husband used to insist her to have co-habitation with his father. The graver the accusation, the greater is the responsibility of the petitioner to prove the same by clear, cogent and credible evidence. In her cross-examination she stated that she was not even spared on the first day of her visit to her in laws house. The very first day her husband asked to cohabit with his father and told her that he had been brought only for co-habitation with his father. She even stated that she, her husband and her father-in-law were there in the same room for about 2-3 hours and her husband was insisting to share the bed with his father and her father-in-law had attempted to catch hold of her. Thereafter both of them had gone out of the room and they did not come inside the room for the whole night. Thereafter both of them had gone out of the room and they did not come inside the room for the whole night. She admitted that in the house of her father-in-law there are only two rooms and there is one Chowk. There are two sons of Dhoklaram. The other elder son is Joga, who was already married. When this incident happened on the first night she did scream, but no body entered into the room from outside.Her mother-in-law and her Jeth were there in the Chowk, but they did not come in, for rescuing her. She even went on stating that her father-in-law had cohabited with her on 3.4 occasions, although she refused, but there was insistence on his part. In her further cross-examination she stated that when his brother came to fetch her 10-15 days after the marriage, site was not sent to her father's house and that time she did not disclose any thing to him. How far the testimony of Mst. Meera is trustworthy, is to be seen not in the light of her own evidence, but also in the light of other evidence on record. Before proceeding to consider her testimony in the light of the other evidence on record, I may state here that the whole story, as deposed by Meera, is not credible and is unbelievable and appears to be far from truth. To me, it appears that a very wild and reckless accusation has been levelled against Dhoklaram, the father-in-law of Meera. Dhoklaratn is aged about 65 years. Purshottam is his second son. The first sou was already married, whose wife is also putting up with Dhoklaram. Meera's mother-in-law also puts up with Dhoklaram. It is unbelievable that on the very first night such an occurrence would take place, as is alleged by Meera, that on the very first night Daokla-rain would behave in the manner, as alleged by her. It is further unbelievable that the members of the family would remain passive spectators and would stiffer the alleged conduct of Dhoklaram. If such an event had happened with Meera, there was no reason for her not to have disclosed the entire incident including the beating, to her brother, when he visited after 10- 15 days of the marriage. It is further unbelievable that the members of the family would remain passive spectators and would stiffer the alleged conduct of Dhoklaram. If such an event had happened with Meera, there was no reason for her not to have disclosed the entire incident including the beating, to her brother, when he visited after 10- 15 days of the marriage. Even when Bhuraram visited her and had a talk with her, she did not disclose this fact to him also and she contented to dis. close only this much that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law heat him. In her examination-in-chief she simply stated that she disclosed that she was meted out such a behaviour by her in-laws. She did not clarify in her examination-in-chief that the accusation against Dhoklaram was also disclosed, but she is very categorical in her cross examination that only this thing was disclosed by her to her brother that she is in trouble at her father-in-law's place. Her in-laws and her husband beat him. She had even an audacity to state that she complained about such a conduct of her father-in-law to her mother-in-law. Even then her mother-in-law told him that Dhoklaram would continue to conduct in that manner and that she should share the bed with liar. The statement of Mst. Meera cannot be accepted as true considering that whatever she had stated in her cross-examination, may be a little exaggeration on her part. It is unbelievable that a man aged about 65 years would cohabit or insist for cohabiting with her daughter-in-law aged about 13 years and that too in the house in which other members are living and that too openly and in the knowledge of the other members of the family. She even went on stating that her father-in-law had intercourse with her on 3-4 occasions. This statement of her is nothing, but false, as there is no such allegation made by the petitioner in the petition itself. It is un-understandable, if there was any truth in this allegation why it was not alleged in the petition. 13. Mr. J.R. Tatia, learned counsel for the appellant, referred to the statements of Bholaram, Gurnaram, Shanker and also to the testimony of Amraram and submitted that the version given by Meera finds corroboration from the statements of the other witnesses, so, the statement of Meera may be tested in the light of the other evidence. 13. Mr. J.R. Tatia, learned counsel for the appellant, referred to the statements of Bholaram, Gurnaram, Shanker and also to the testimony of Amraram and submitted that the version given by Meera finds corroboration from the statements of the other witnesses, so, the statement of Meera may be tested in the light of the other evidence. He very much emphasised that Gurnaram and Shanker were the Panchas of the Panchayat called at Panchayat considered the accusation against Dhoklararn, but Dhoklaram instead of repenting for his misconduct, insisted that he cannot leave his habit. The admission of Dhoklaram in the Panchayat testifies to the truthful nature of the accusetion made by Meera. 14. Here again it is to be seen how far the testimony of Gurnaram and Shanker is credible and trustworthy. Both of them had no talk with Meera. The presence of these two witnesses in the Panchayat is rendered doubtful, as both these witnesses have stated that the outcome of the Panchayat was nil, because of the insistence of Dhoklaram not to leave his bad habit, whereas the fact is that the out come of the Panchayat was that Meera and Purshottam were required to live for some time at the house of Sauwalararn, as has been stated by none else other than Bhuraram. In the rebuttal evidence, the non-petitioner has also examined two Panchas, namely, Mishrimal and Shivlal. According to these Panchas the accusation against Dhoklaram was not at all referred to in the Panchayat. According to them, the complaint against the husband was that he is weak and impotent and cannot satisfy the petitioner. Thereupon, the Panchas told for the medical examination of the husband, but the people from the petitioner's side refused for that. Shivlal (N.A.W.2) stated that the Panchas told that the couple may be allowed to live at the house of Sanwalram. Thereupon, the couple lived at the house of Sanwalram for three (lays, but when differences arose, both of them left to their places. 1'Iishrimal (N.A.W.1) is related to Meera. Meera is the daughter of his sister-in-law. To me it appears that the Panchayat was called so that some settlement may be reached and union may be made possible and it appears that the petitioner started living at her father's house, as she was not satisfied with her husband, as he was weak. This is also evident from the statement of Mst. Meera. To me it appears that the Panchayat was called so that some settlement may be reached and union may be made possible and it appears that the petitioner started living at her father's house, as she was not satisfied with her husband, as he was weak. This is also evident from the statement of Mst. Meera. Meera has stated that her husband had intercourse with her only on 2-3 occasions during the period of her stay at her in-laws' house, which is for more than a year.and she also stated that her husband did not use to come in the night and used to remain at the Cinema, in the night and used to come in the morning. Her grievance, thus, appears to be that her husband is weak and on account of that differences arose and it was this, which led to the convening of the Panchayat and it was this aspect, which was considered by the Panchas. It ultimately culminated in requiring them to stay for sometime at the house of Sanwalram. Even Purshottam was cross-examined on this aspect, but in cross-examination he has categorically denied that he used to sleep at the Cinema at the night and did not use to come to his house and sleep with Meera I find the version given by Mishrilal, Shivlal, Purshottam and Amraram to be truthful on the matter which was discussed and considered by the Panchayat. In the light of this reliable evidence, the testimony of Gurnaram and Shanker is discredited and their testimony is also discredited in the light of the statement of Bhuraram himself when he has deposed that after the Panchayat, the couple lived at the house of Sanwalram. If the reason was the cruelty of the petitioner's father-in-law for insisting cohabitation and when there was insistence by Dhoklaram even in the Panchayat not to leave his habit, there was no occasion for keeping the couple at the house of Sanwalram. Stay of the couple at the house of Sanwalram exposes the hollowness of the accusation matte against Dhoklaram. Impotency or weakness of the husband must be the matter, which was discussed in the Panchayat and on account of that matter it stands to reason that the couple was required to stay at the house of Sanwalram. 15. Mr. Stay of the couple at the house of Sanwalram exposes the hollowness of the accusation matte against Dhoklaram. Impotency or weakness of the husband must be the matter, which was discussed in the Panchayat and on account of that matter it stands to reason that the couple was required to stay at the house of Sanwalram. 15. Mr. Tatia, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that if Meera would have been treated with love and affection properly, there was no reason for Meera to refuse to go to the house of her in-laws. A young girl would like to go to her in-laws' house if she finds that the climate at her in-laws' house is congenial and that she could live happily there. He urged that there must be something so bad at the in-laws' house, on account of which Meera does not want to go to the house of her in-laws. The evidence can also be examined in this light, but it does not take me any where. There may be reasons and reasons, which may be responsible for Meera's living separately away from her husband's house and not to visit the house of her husband. Suggestions have been given that the parents of Meera want to contract marriage of Meera. after accepting money or that the parents of Meera want to devour valuable ornaments said to have been taken away by Meera. I, therefore, need not go to the question as to what impelled Meera to live away from her in-laws' house. What is really to be seen is as to whether the grounds on which the petition is founded, have been substantiated by the petitioner by credible evidence. If the petitioner has failed to substantiate the grounds by credible evidence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 16. Thus, in the light of the above discussion of the evidence, I hold, that the accusation levelled against Dhoklaram is untrue and is not proved. I agree with the finding of the learned District judge on issue No. 1 so the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 17. No other point, except on the question of appreciation of evidence, has been pressed before me. 18. In the result, this appeal has no merit, so it is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******