( 1 ) A very short point calls for decision in this appeal.

( 2 ) THE appellant Sachindra and the respondent No. 1 Banamala are both Hindus and the marriage between the two was solemnised according to Hindu rites, on Falgoon 19, 1358 B. S. (1951 ). There was a daughter born to them, while hying a wedlock, sometime in the month of Bhadra. of the year 1360 B. S. (1953 ).

( 3 ) PRIYANATH, the co-respondent, described in the memorandum of appeal as the respondent No. 2, is the husband to one of the sisters of Banamala. Alleging that Banamala was living in adultery with the said Priyanath, the appellant filed a petition, under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, claiming that his marriage with Banamala be dissolved by a decree of divorce.

( 4 ) THE husband led evidence to prove that the wife was living in adultery with Priyanath. The respondent wife did not examine herself nor did she examine any witness to prove her innocence. The co-respondent Priyanath did not contest. On consideration of the evidence the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the charge of adultery was proved against the wife. He, therefore, passed a decree for divorce, dissol