In Maslow v. Maslow (1953) 117 Cal. App. 2d 237, the husband represented that he desired to have children. But, after the marriage the wife learned that the representation was false and she and her mother testified that the husband never intended to have children. (Id. at p. 240.) The trial court disbelieved this testimony and declined to annul the marriage. (Id. at p. 241.) The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court was the best judge of the credibility of the witnesses. (Id. at pp. 243-244.) Its statements are equally applicable here: "Where the evidence will support different inferences, the choice of inferences is for the trial court; and its finding, based on the inferences drawn, cannot be disturbed on appeal. The trier of fact is the exclusive judge of the credibility of the witnesses. The trial court is free to disbelieve and reject the testimony of witnesses even though they are uncontradicted and unimpeached. These rules apply with particular emphasis to an action for annulment since the state is a silent but active third party to every action to dissolve a marriage. The state is interested in seeing to it that no marriage is declared void as a result of fraud or collusion, and that the statutory grounds on which the annulment is sought actually do exist. " (Id. at pp. 242-243.) Accordingly, the court upheld the refusal to grant an annulment.