GYANENDRA KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal, by the petitioner-husband against the judgment and decree of the Civil judge of Bareilly dismissing his petition under Sections 10 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant had sought dissolution of the marriage, and in the alternative, judicial separation on three grounds, namely, adultery, cruelty and desertion by his wife.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the parties were married on 27-5-1955 at Gorakhpur. In november, 1957, a son was born from their union. The allegation of the appellant is that the respondent, without any just or reasonable cause, has been refusing her society to and co-habitation with the petitioner and that she has been living in adultery with the co-respondent chandra Prakash. He has further claimed the recovery of ornaments and garments worth Rs. 2,000/- from the respondent (Smt. Chandra Mohani ).

( 3 ) THE co-respondent did not put in appearance at the trail, with the result that the case proceeded ex parte against him. The respondent, however denied the allegations pf the appellant and alleged that it was the appellant and his parents, who had been treating her cruelly, that she had never deserted nor left her husbands home, as alleged by him. She strongly repudiated the allegation of the illicit intimacy with the co-respondent and denied having received letters from him including Exts. 2 and 3. Lastly she contended that "the ornaments mentioned in the petition were with the petitioner and not herself.

( 4 ) ON the point of adultery, the case of the appellant was that the respondent was intimate with the co-respondent regarding which he had suspicions ever since his marriage. However, his suspicion was confirmed in May/june, 1958 when he returned home at about 8 P. M. and found the respondent and the co-respondent closeted together in a room chained from inside. It is alleged by him that he kept on knocking the door for about ten minutes, and it was then that the door of the room was opened. But instantly the appellant went away while the co-respondent was found perspiring in a strange posture. The allegation of the appellant further is that in February, 1959, he came across two letters dated 1-7-55 (Ext. 3) and dated 16-7-55 (Ext. 2) of the co-respondent addressed to his wife, which according to him, finally proved that there was a liaison between the correspondent and his wife. Reliance is also placed upon another letter (Ext. 1) which was in the handwriting of Km. Prem Nandni, younger sister of his wife taken down at the dictation of his mother-in-law, addressed to the respondent. Another document, on which considerable reliance has been placed by the appellant is the letter of his father dated 28-2-59 addressed to Mahabali Prasad, father of the respondent.

( 5 ) THE allegation of the appellant, supported by the testimony of his father P. W. 3 Kashi Prasad, having actually seen the respondent and the co-respondent closeted for a considerable time in a room chained from inside was rightly rejected by the Court below, inasmuch as 8 P. M. in the month of May and June was not at all the opportune time for carrying on such a nefarious activity in a house inhabited by the parents and other relatives of the appellant. It is also incredible that lovers would choose such a time, when the appellant was normally expected to be at home after returning from his office. It is again untrustworthy that the appellant would continue knocking at the door for about ten minutes or so, before the door was opened by the respondent or the co-respondent: In this connection it may be mentioned that no report was lodged, nor any action taken by the appellant or his parents about such a serious misconduct on the part of the respondent and her paramour.

( 6 ) HOWEVER, the testimony furnished by the documentary evidence, particularly the two letters of chandra Prakash co-respondent (Exts. 2 and 3) dated 16th and 1st July, 1955, respectively addressed to the responde