In divorce cases, the standard of proof is not as stringent as in criminal cases and circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to prove adultery.

JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput in O. P. 15 of 1957, refusing to grant a divorce to the appellant under S. 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 25 of 1955.

2. The appellant married the respondent on 18-9-1946 at Nandivaram. The parties led a happy married life till 1952. It is alleged in the petition that subsequently the respondent contracted illicit intimacy with one Kamalanathan Naidu, who was living in the same village. When the appellant and his father came to know of this intimacy, they chided her for her misconduct. The respondent then left her husband's protection and went to her mother's place at Rajkilpakkam. Kamalanatha Naidu followed the respondent and lived with her for some months at Rajkilpakkam. Subsequently the respondent deserted Kamalanathan and contracted illicit intimacy with one N.S. Mani and was living with him at Washermenpet. During her stay with N.S. Mani, she conceived and it is alleged that she aborted the child in the Chingleput Head quarters hospital. The appellant also alleged that during her stay with Mani, they posed for photo together. The respondent subsequently deserted Mani also and at the time of filing the petition, she was living with one Sait at No. 45/4 Iswaran Koil St., Old Mambalam. When the appellant was taking steps to take divorce proceedings, the

respondent gave a notice to him containing false allegations and also offering to live with him. The appellant filed the petition out of which this appeal arises for dissolution of the marriage between him and the respondent on the ground of adultery under S. 13(1) of Act 25 of 1955.

3. The petition was stoutly resisted by the respondent. She denied the allegations made in the petition about her living in adultery with Kamalanathan and N.S. Mani. She stated that she never went to the Chingleput hospital for abortion and that the photo said to have been taken by her with Mani was a faked one. She alleged that the appellant is a man of weak intellect and is under the control of his parents, who want to arrange for his marriage with a girl related to them. She denied having lived with Mani at Washermenpet. It is also alleged by her that her father-in-law attempted to get a letter of consent from her offering to pay Rs. 200 as consideration for her consent to the remarriage of the appellant. She also stated that when she came to know that preparations were going on for the remarriage of the appellant, she gave a notice to him, which led to the appellant filing the petition for dissolution of marriage.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge of Chingleput before whom the petition came up for trial found that the appellant has not proved by any reliable evidence that the respondent was living in adultery with N.S. Mani, and that regarding the respondent living with one Salt at Mambalam the appellant has not let any evidence at all and has made no attempt to examine any of the neighbours of the Sait in support of his cast. In view of these findings, the learned Judge dismissed the petition. It is against the dismissal of his petition, that the appellant has preferred this appeal.

5 This case rests mainly on the oral and circumstantial evidence. The question for consideration is whether the appellant had adduced

satisfactory evidence in support of his case that the respondent was living in adultery. In Davis v. Davis 1950-1 All ER 40 while considering the standard of proof required in divorce cases. Denning, L.J. observed at page 42 :

".....a suit for divorce is a civil and not a criminal proceeding. One would expect, therefore, to find that in the ordinary way the rules of civil procedure and not the rules of criminal procedure would apply to divorce suits. The standards and rules of the criminal courts have been built up out of the high regard which the law has for the liberty of the individual. No man's liberty is to be taken away unless the case is proved against him beyond reasonable doubt.