JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the pronouncement recorded by the learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., upon, H.M. Petition No. 10 of 2007 (53 of 2016), wherethrough, he dissolved the marital ties inter se, the, appellant herein, with, the respondent herein. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage inter se the appellant herein, and, the respondent No.1 herein had solemnised on 7th March, 2003, in accordance with Local customs governing the parties, and, after marriage, the appellant and respondent No.1 herein lived together at Manali, and, thereafter, she developed illicit relation with the brother of respondent No.1. It is averred in the petition that in the first week of January, 2007, and, in the first week of April, 2007, appellant herein, and, respondent No.2 herein were caught red handed, while having illicit relation by the parents of the petitioner. Thus, the petition was filed for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. 3. The appellant herein contested the petition, and, had filed reply to the petition, wherein, she denied the allegations of illicit relation, levelled against her. She has pleaded that respondent No.1 herein was not faithfully discharging his marital obligations and he along with his family members started claiming more dowry. Respondent No.1 herein had also developed illicit relation with Smt. Siti in the year 2006, and, was compelling her for divorce. She was given beatings and turned out of matrimonial home. 4. Respondent No.2 has also filed reply to the petition, wherein, he had averred that appellant lived at Manali with her husband, but at the same time, she used to come to her matrimonial home at village Chowki, when respondent No.1 herein was away at Manali, the appellant started alluring, inducing and teasing the replying respondent No.2, when he was studying in class 10th in Govt. Sr. Secondary School Tihri, Tehsil Khundian, District Kangra, H.P. He tried his best not to fell prey to her sexual lust, but in the month of December, 2005, he was called by her to her room and forced to satisfy her sexual desire. Further, he has averred that on many occasion, when she used to come to village Chowki, in the absence of the respondent No.1 herein, he satisfied her sexual desire with her consent. Further, he has averred that on many occasion, when she used to come to village Chowki, in the absence of the respondent No.1 herein, he satisfied her sexual desire with her consent. In January, 2007, he along with appellant herein was caught red handed by his parents. Thereafter, a compromise was effected. Again, in the first week of April, 2007, he was caught red handed with the appellant, and, thereafter he was ousted from his house by his father and was deprived of his property. Since, then he is living separately. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the respondent committed adultery with the brother of the petitioner, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the respondent left the society of petitioner without any rhyme and reason and deserted the petitioner, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty, as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the decree of divorce, as alleged? OPP 5. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present petition? OPR. 6. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition, as alleged? OPR. 7. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence adduced before the learned District Judge, the latter allowed, the, apposite petition. 7. The petitioner/respondent No.1 herein, has, specifically levelled allegations against the appellant herein, qua hers having illicit relations, with his brother, respondent No.2, and, that both of them were caught red handed, by his parents, firstly in the month of January, 2007, and, thereafter in the first week of April, 2007, at her matrimonial home, in Village Chowki. The afore averments made in the petition were, admitted by respondent No.2, in his reply furnished, to the apposite petition. He has also averred therein, qua his being ousted, from his family, by his father, for the afore reasons, and, now from April, 2007, he is living separately, at Barotiwala. PW-2, Shri Amr Singh, the father of the petitioner, and, of the respondent No.2, has in his testification borne in his examination-in-chief, made echoings qua his manny times rather nabbing, respondent No.1 hence in a compromising position, with respondent No.2. PW-2, Shri Amr Singh, the father of the petitioner, and, of the respondent No.2, has in his testification borne in his examination-in-chief, made echoings qua his manny times rather nabbing, respondent No.1 hence in a compromising position, with respondent No.2. There is nothing on record, to constrain, this Court to disbelieve the testification, rendered by respondent No.2, qua his developing illicit relations, with, the appellant herein, more importantly, when he has testified qua his hence being disinherited, by his father, from property. The factum of respondent No.2 being disinherited from the property, for the afore reason, is proven, by, a, publication, of, a news item, in, a daily newspaper, news item whereof, is, embodied in Ex.PW1/D. It is important, to mention here the appellant, was also afforded, an opportunity to rebut the evidence, led by respondent No.2, qua the afore factum, yet she did not lead any rebuttal evidence. Since, the appellant has not lead any evidence, for rebutting, the afore allegations levelled against her, thereupon, it leads to a conclusion, that, she is acquiescing qua the afore allegations being truthful. 8. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has, made a submission before this Court, that, she was tortured by respondent No.1, and, his family members, rather for bringing less dowry. However, the afore submission, has no force, and, it is rejected, given there being no documentary evidence existing, on record, for proving the afore factum. Moreover, if it was so, she was enjoined to report the matter to the police or to the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned. However, she has omitted to do so, in sequel her omission to report the matter to the police or to the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned, constrains a conclusion, from, this Court that the afore version of the appellant, is, a sheer contrivance or concoction, hence, on her part. 9. Furthermore, the respondent has submitted, that the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein was having illicit relations with one Smt. Siti Devi. However, the afore allegations levelled against the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein also remained unproven. The petitioner/respondent No.1 to rebut the afore allegations, has examined one Gagan, the husband of Siti Devi, who, has testified qua his residing in the same building, wherein, the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein, is, a resident at Manali. However, the afore allegations levelled against the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein also remained unproven. The petitioner/respondent No.1 to rebut the afore allegations, has examined one Gagan, the husband of Siti Devi, who, has testified qua his residing in the same building, wherein, the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein, is, a resident at Manali. He has also testified, qua his, and, the petitioner also working in the same establishment. Consequently, it appears that the afore allegations, levelled by the appellant herein, rather being a sheer prevarication, only for controverting the allegations levelled against her, hence, by the petitioner. 10. The above discussion unfolds that the conclusions as arrived by the learned trial Court, are based, upon a proper and mature appreciation, of, the relevant evidence existing, on record. While rendering the findings, the learned trial Court has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. 11. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant appeal, which, is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.