In a petition for divorce on the ground of adultery, adultery must be established to the satisfaction of the court beyond reasonable doubt; but, as direct proof of adultery can rarely be had, a court may infer adultery from certain facts unless there is evidence to negate the inference.

( 1 ) THE applicant Samuel Bahadur Singh has been granted a decree nisi against respondent No. 1 Roshni Singh for the dissolution of his marriage with her. He has also been granted a decree for Rs. 500/- as damages against the corespondent Chhuttan. The proceedings have been submitted to this Court under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the confirmation of the decree nisi aforesaid.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was married to the respondent Roshni Singh at the St. Paul's Church at Jabalpur on 14-1-1953. After their marriage, they lived and cohabited at 117, Napier Town, Jabalpur, till about 16-1-1954. On or about 16-11954, the respondent Roshni Singh left the petitioner's house informing him that she was going to her brother's place at Mandla. She never came back to live with him thereafter. Soon after January 1954, the petitioner was transferred to Wardha where he lived for about 2 1/2 years. In the last week of November 1957, the petitioner was transferred back to Jabalpur, when he learned that his wife, the respondent Roshni Singh, was living in adultery with the corespondent Chuttan at Mandla for the last three years and that she had also begotten a son from him. He, therefore, filed the present petition under Section 10 of the Act for the dissolution of his marriage with his said wife, the respondent Roshni Singh, on the ground that since the solemnization of his marriage with her, she had been guilty of adultery with the co-respondent Chhuttan. He averred that there was no collusion between the parties for the purpose of obtaining the divorce and that the petitioner had neither connived at, nor condoned, the adultery committed by the respondent Roshni Singh with the co-respondent Chhuttan. He also claimed a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as damages from the co-respondent Chhuttan for the loss of company of his wife.

( 3 ) THE petition was undefended, and the proceedings were ex parte, both against the respondent Roshni Singh as well as against the co-respondent Chhuttan. The learned District Judge held that the petitioner and the respondent Roshni Singh professed Christian religion, that they were Christians at the time of their marriage as also at the time the present petition was made, and that their marriage was solemnized according to the Christian rites at the St. Paul's Church, Jabalpur, in the year 1953. He also found that the petitioner and the respondent Roshni Singh were domiciled in India and that they last resided together at Napier Town, Jabalpur, within the jurisdiction of his Court. He further held that since the solemnization of their marriage, the respondent Roshni Singh had been guilty of adultery. Relying on the testimony of the petitioner, he also held that there was no collusion between the parties and that the circumstances of the case showed that the petitioner had neither connived at, nor condoned, the adultery committed by the respondent Roshni Singh with the co-respondent Chhuttan. As regards damages, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the married life of the petitioner and the respondent Roshni Singh for about a year after marriages was happy and that the loss of the former's wife was brought about by a wrongful act of the co-respondent Chhuttan without any fault on the part of the petitioner. He accordingly passed a decree nisi in favour of the petitioner for the dissolution of his marriage with the respondent Roshni Singh. He also passed a decree for a sum of Rs. 500/-as damages against the corespondent Chhuttan and also awarded costs of the proceedings against both the respondent and the co-respondent.

( 4 ) BEFORE us also, neither the respondent nor the co-respondent have appeared, though they were served with notices of these proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner took us through the evidence, and, in our opinion, the findings that the petitioner and the respondent Roshni Singh were Christians at the time of their marriage,