In a divorce proceeding under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, allegations of physical and mental cruelty must be supported by credible evidence, and accusations of serious misconduct, such as forcible cohabitation, require strong and reliable corroboration.

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 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 t