A nata marriage between two Hindus is void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and living together as husband and wife after such a marriage amounts to living in adultery.

1. - This Civil Mic. appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated April 21,1979 of learned District Judge, Udaipur, whereby the petition for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The main ground for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce taken in the petition was that respondent No. 1 Bhanwaria was living in adultery. It is alleged that the appellant was married with respondent No. 1 according the Hindu rites in the year 1970. The appellant went to house of the respondent no. 1 for the first occasion in the year 1975, for a few days. She again visited the house of respondents three moths before the date of petition 9-3-76. But after a few days, the respondents turned her out from his house after giving her a beating. Respondent no. 1 has married Bhagudi and they were living as husband and wife. The date of the alleged marriage or the 'nata' was mentioned as 6-3-76. Respondent no. 1 in his written reply denied that the appellant had come to his house on the two occasions. She only came to his house once with her mother and stayed with him for only two days and then went away with her mother. He was ready and willing to keep the appellant with him. It was denied that he had married with Bhagudi or had contacted a nata marriage with her. It may be stated that Bhagudi was also made a party to this petition. Issue no. 1 raised in the petition was to the effect whether non-petitioner No. 1 was living in adultery with respondent No. 2. The appellant examined herself and three witnesses namely Lalu, Hiralal, and Duda to prove the nata of Bhagudi with respondent no. 1. In rebuttal, respondent no. I examined himself and Kalu. The finding of the District Judge was that the allegation of nata marriage of respondent no. 1 with respondent no. 2 on 6-3-76 did not amount to living in adultery. The finding was that the appellant failed to prove by cogent evidence that respondent no. 1 had entered into a nata marriage with respondent no. 2. It was further observed that it was not alleged in the petition that Bhanwaria and Bhagudi indulged in sexual intercourse and also no evidence was produced to prove this fact. Learned District Judge was, therefore, of the opinion that it was not proved that respondent no, 1 was living in the adultery with respondent no. 2.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case carefully.

4. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned District Judge was in error in coming to a conclusion that on 6-3-76 Bhanwaria respondent no. 1 had not performed a nata marriage with respondent no. 2 Bhagudi. The evidence led on behalf of the appellant was disbelieved solely on the ground that the witnesses were interested. PW 1 Bhanwari stated that Bhanwaria had entered into a nata with Bhagwati. She was informed by Lalu 5 or 10 days after the nata about it. Naturally, this witness has no personal knowledge about the alleged nata. However, PW 2 Lalu has categorically stated in his statement that he was present in the nata ceremony and thereafter he bad also seen that Bhagudi was pregnant. It appears that this witness is interested being a relation of the appellant but in my opinion, only on this score his statement can not be discarded. The only other infirmity noticed in his statement is that, contrary to the statement of Bhanwari, this witness said that he informed the appellant and her father about nata immediately. Heeralal stated that Bhagudi and Bhanwaria were living as husband and wife. He also stated that the nata was performed in his presence. The witness was examined on 19-8-78 and he has further stated that about 20 or 25 days before this date, Bhagudi gave birth to a daughter. PW 4 Duda also stated that Bhanwari and Bhanwaria were living as husband and wife. Bhagudi has delivered a daughter, I have gone through the statements of these witnesses carefully, and could find no coge