In a divorce proceeding based on adultery, the standard of proof required is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

( 1 ) THE District Judge has under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, referred for our confirmation the decree nisi, passed in favour of the petitioner and against his wife, the respondent No. 1 for divorce on a finding that she committed adultery with the respondent No, 2, It may be mentioned here only that before the District Judge as also before this Court, the respondents did not appear and could only be served with summons of the suit only by substituted service by publication in newspaper.

( 2 ) MARRIAGE between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 was performed on 6-11-1972 under the Indian Christian Marriage Act. For some time the couple lived well and on 16-9-1973 were blessed with a female child named Elizabeth alias Shalina. The respondent No. 1, however, could not remain faithful to the petitioner for long and developed unholy alliance with one Vasant Holland deniel with whom she eloped on 3-12-1976. This incident gave rise to proceeding for divorce. The petition was registered as Civil Suit No. 34-A of 1976 before the District Judge, Jabalpur. The respondent No. 1, however, returned to the petitioner, expressed regrets for what she did and promised to remain quite faithful to the petitioner thereafter. The petitioner pardoned her and the proceedings were dropped. The petitioner had a workshop in Adhartal, jabalpur at some distance from their residence. The respondent No, 2 was employed in that workshop. He used to visit the petitioner's house quite often, also in his absence. This afforded opportunity to the respondent No, 1 to come in closer contact with him.

( 3 ) THE petitioner alleges that the solemn assurance given by the respondent no. 1 was very short lived. She took a fancy for the respondent No. 2 who was seen in their house at such hours when he ought to be working in the workshop. The respondents had secret meetings and they developed illicit intimacy, The petitioner became suspicious and even warned the respondent no. I. Instead of forbearing to proceed in that direction, the respondent No. 1 exhibited an attitude of defiance. The petitioner concluded that the respondent no. 1 had again deviated from the path of virtue and had gone back to lead an adulterous life. This time the companion was the respondent No, 2. An incident actually witnessed by their milkman, by name Fateh Mohammad (P. W. 2) in the morning of 7th April, 1977 made the petitioner firmly believe that the respondent No. 1 had committed adultery with the respondent No. 2. On 6-41977, says the petitioner, he had gone out of station leaving the respondent no, 1 and the daughter at home. Next morning the milkman, Fateh Mohammad (P. W. 2), as usual went to their place to deliver them their quota of milk. He knocked at the outer door. Finding no response, he walked over to the other side of the house and pushed back a window which opened as it was not chained from within. To his utter surprise, he saw the two respondents lying in one bed embracing each other. He turned on his heels. He told this incident to the petitioner two or three days thereafter on his return. The petitioner, therefore, alleges that the respondent No. 1 committed adultery and claimed dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. Although after due service, the respondents remained absent, the District Judge in his wisdom required the petitioner to prove his allegation of adultery. The petitioner examined himself as P. W. 1 and the milkman-Fateh Mohammad as P. W. 2. Relying upon these testimonies and also looking to the past conduct of the respondent No. 1, the district Judge held that the respondent No. 1 committed adultery entitling the petitioner to a decree of divorce. ( 4 ) MEANING of 'adultery' as a ground for relief in matrimonial cases is well known. It means voluntary sexual intercourse by one spouse with some person of opposite sex other than his or her spouse during the subsistence of the marriage. Adultery, therefore, can rarely be prove