The burden of proof is on the party who alleges a fact to prove that fact.

P.D.Sharma, J.

1. This first appeal is directed against the order and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ist Class, Patiala, annulling the marriage solemnised between the parties on 8th October, 1962, according to Hindu rites. Baldev Raj Miglani filed an application under Section 12 of the Hindu Act for annulment of his marriage with Smt. Urmila Kumari alleging that he co-habited with his wife four or five times after the marriage, that on 30th October, 1962, he learnt that she was already pRegulation nt by some other person and that he was ignorant of this fact at the time of the marriage. Smt. Urmila Kumari controverted the above allegations and maintained that she never had sexual intercourse with any other person. The trial Judge framed the following issues :-

1. Whether the respondent at the time of her marriage with the petitioner was pRegulation nt by some person other than the petitioner and whether the petitioner was at the time of the marriage ignorant of this fact and whether marital intercourse with the consent of the petitioner has not taken place since the discovery by the petitioner of the existence of respondents pRegulation ncy by some person other than the petitioner as alleged in para 4 of the application ?

2. Relief.

Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the applicant and he was allowed the decree prayed for. Smt. Urmila Kumari wife in the present appeal has challenged the correctness and propriety thereof.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the trial Judge had not properly appreciated the evidence led by the parties before him which largely consists of the statements of medical Experts. He was right in his contention for the reasons which I shall state hereinafter. Lady Dr. Daljit Dhillon Women Assistant Surgeon Class II, A.W. 1 examined Smt. Urmila Kumar on 30th October, 1962 and found her pRegulation nt. In her opinion the duration of pRegulation ncy was 2-1/2 months. she had not specified any reason for coming to the conclusion that the pRegulation ncy was 2-/12 months old while issuing the certificate Exhibit A-1. She again examined Smt. Urmila Kumari on 8th December, 1962 and issued certificate R.1 where she said that the pRegulation ncy was 16 weeks advance. It was admitted by the witness that she had not specialised in Gynaeocology. In the Court she described certain signs which she is said to have noticed during the examination of Smt. Urmila Kumari which led her to come to the conclusion that the pRegulation ncy was 16 weeks old but none of those symptoms were noted by her in R-1 or A-1. She in cross-examination admitted -

"We count the time after 7 days of the menses. It is correct that the normal time of delivery is 280 days after the close of menstruation. I cannot tell the maximum period after which the delivery takes place from the date of the pRegulation ncy. I cannot tell even the minimum period."

The admissions made by the witness showed that her knowledge in gynaecology was measure. She could not tell the maximum period after which the delivery takes place from the date of the pRegulation ncy. She was wrong when she said that the time is counted after 7 days of the menses Dr. (Mrs.) Ganda Singh, Assistant Professor Obstetrics and Gynecology A.W. 2 also examined Smt. Urmila Kumari on 6th March, 1963 and from the X-ray, A-3 she stated that the size of the uterus was 34 weeks. She admitted that it was not possible for her to give the correct age of the foetus, i.e., the age of the pRegulation ncy. She further admitted in her cross-examination that before two months pRegulation ncy it was very difficult to give the date or time of the pRegulation ncy. She could not say whether after 4 or 5 months of the pRegulation ncy by having an X-ray examination a definite opinion about the age of pRegulation ncy could be given or not. The statement of this witness also could not form a basis for coming to a definite conclusion about the duration of pRegulation ncy when Urmil