( 1 ) THIS is a wife's appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

( 2 ) THE appellant applied for a declaration that her marriage with the respondent was a nullity as the respondent was already married to one Sanoti, who was living at the time the respondent married the appellant. In the alternative, it was prayed that a decree for divorce be passed against the respondent on the ground that he was living in adultery. These grounds were negatived by the trial Court and the application of the wife was dismissed,

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has raised before us both the grounds and has argued that either a decree of nullity be passed in favour of the appellant or the marriage be dissolved by a decree of divorce.

( 4 ) WE shall first take up the point regarding the respondent living in adultery. On this point, the appellant examined Kotia (P. W. 2 ). He stated that in a Barat the respondent was found committing sexual intercourse with two women, namely, sahbin and Karsula. The incident gave rise to a Panchayat in which the two women were fined Rs. 51/- each and the respondent was fined Rs. 101/ -. He also stated that the respondent was again caught with Sahbin a year after the first incident and there was another Panchayat in which both of them admitted to have committed the offence, as a result of which, Sahbin was fined Rs. 51/- and the respondent was fined Rs. 101/ -. In cross-examination, the witness stated that on the first occasion, the respondent was committing sexual intercourse with the two women in the presence of about fifty or sixty persons. The story narrated by this witness is so unnatural that it cannot be believed. Again, the witness further stated that the Panchas in the first Panchayat delivered their decision in writing and the same was still with the Panchas. The written decision of the Panchavat was not produced in this case and therefore, the story that the respondent was fined in the Panchavat cannot be accepted. The evidence of Kotia (P. W. 2)relating to the two incidents does not inspire confidence. Dayaram, the other witness, who was examined in this connection as P. W. 3 and who is husband of sahbin stated that in the first Panchavat Sahbin, Karsula and the respondent were fined by the Panchas on charges of adultery. On the other occasion, he found his wife in the house of the respondent. Thereafter, he called a Panchayat in which the respondent admitted to have committed adultery with Sahbin, In the cross-examination, this witness admitted that the decision of the first Panchavat was given in writing and that writing was with one Deojya Mahajan. As already stated, this written decision was not produced. As regards the second Panchavat, the witness, in the cross-examination, did not stick to his earlier statement that the defendant had admitted to have committed adultery with Sahbin. It must be noticed that the witness only saw his wife in the house of the respondent when the respondent was not in the house. From this circumstance, it cannot be inferred that the respondent had committed adultery with Sahbin. Hari-chand (P. W. 4) is another witness to prove that the respondent was fined twice by the Panchavat on charges of adultery. As regards the first Panchayat this witness stated in his cross-examination that the decision was not delivered in writing. This evidence is quite contrary to the evidence of the earlier witnesses. The last witness that was examined in this connection is Salikram (P. W. 5 ). This witness also admitted that so far as the first Panchayat was concerned, the decision was given in writing and that writing was in possession of one Deoiva Mahajan. As regards the other panchayat the witness stated that the decision was oral. ( 5 ) WE have considered the evidence of all these witnesses and. in our opinion, the case of adultery cannot be substantiated from their evidence. We, therefore, reject the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant tha