JUDGMENT

Asutosh Mookerjee, C.J. - This is an appeal against a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage made upon a petition presented by a husband u/s 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, on the ground that his wife had, since the solemnization of the marriage, been guilty of adultery.

2. The petitioner and the respondent were married on the 21st May 1S02 and lived together until the month of February 1905, Daring this period, two children were born to them, a daughter, now sixteen years of age, and a son who is dead. In February 1905, the respondent left the petitioner and lived apart till the end of the year 1912, or the beginning of the year 1913. The petitioner alleges that after the respondent had left him, she lived in adultery with one Pratti, now deceased. She gave birth to two children in 1907 and 1908; but the petitioner was not aware either of the adultery with Pratti or of the birth of the children. In 1909 one Abro commenced divorce proceeding against his own wife and made the petitioner a co-respondent, on the allegation of adultery with her. Shortly after, in 1910, the respondent instituted divorce proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of the adultery alleged in the Abro suit. Both the suits were dismissed as against the petitioner. In 1912, the petitioner and the respondent became reconciled through the intervention of a friend, and from the beginning of 1913 they resumed cohabitation. According to the petitioner, he discovered, for the first time, towards the end of that year or in the beginning of next year, that his wife had committed adultery with Pratti and that children had been born of the intercourse. The parties accordingly separated again. The respondent instituted proceedings before a Presidency Magistrate for maintenance order u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but withdrew them as the parties came to an arrangement. In December 1911 she again instituted similar proceedings, and on the 6th January 1915 the Magistrate made an order in her favour directing the petitioner to pay her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. On the 19th December 1918, that is, nearly four years after the date of the maintenance order, the petitioner commenced the present proceedings for dissolution of marriage and for the custody of his daughter. The respondent did not deny the alleged adultery, but opposed the petition substantially on two grounds namely, first, that the petitioner had condoned the adultery, within the meaning of Section 13 of the Indian Divorce Act, and secondly, that the petitioner had been guilty of unreasonable delay in presenting the petition, within the meaning of Section 14, Mr. Justice Greaves has overruled both these contentions and has granted the husband a decree nisi for dissolution with the custody of the child of the marriage The respondent has appealed to this Court and Counsel on her behalf has reiterated the We defaces which were unsuccessfully urged in the trial Court.

3. As regards the first contention, namely that the husband had condoned the adultery and was consequently no longer entitled to an order for dissolution of marriage, reliance has been placed upon the admitted fast that the parties resumed cohabitation in 1913. The only point in controversy is whether at the time when cohabitation was resumed or during the continuance thereof the husband was aware of the antecedent adultery on the part of his wife The wife asserts that he had full and definite knowledge of all the circumstances before cohabitation was resumed; the husband maintains on the other hand that he had no such knowledge when he took back his wife and that as soon as he made the discovery, he separated from her in the beginning of 1914. There is conflict of testimony on this point; and upon an examination of the evidence we have arrived at the conclusion that, even though it may be difficult to ascertain whether the story narrated by either party is true in all its details, there is no room for rea