The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving adultery and non-access in divorce cases, and the consideration of subsequent events in determining the outcome of the case.

( 1 ) THE husband, aggrieved by the rejection of his prayer for divorce by the District Judge, Guna, by his judgment dated 31-1-1979, has preferred this appeal under S. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

( 2 ) RESPONDENT is his first wife who was barren for 12 years while living with the appellant-husband. According to the husband, on the advice and instigation, the appellant acquired a second wife, by marriage. But, after this second marriage, the differences between the appellant and respondent widened. At last, the caste Panchayat assembled on 24-6-1966, which decided that the appellant should pay a monthly maintenance to the respondent and should also provide shelter in his own home. But, on 28-4-1968, the respondent left her husband's home with bag and baggage and on 19-5-1978, started proceedings in a Court of law for maintenance. Ultimately, there was a compromise and the appellant was required to pay the respondent a maintenance amount of Rs. 50/- p. m. According to the husband/appellant, he never cohabited with the respondent after 28-4-1968, but she delivered a boy on 12-3-1969 and a girl on 27-5-1975, and as she had voluntary sexual intercourse with other person or persons, he is entitled to get a decree for divorce on the sole ground of adultery. ( 3 ) THE respondent in the trial Court accepted the factum of marriage, but repudiated the fact that she encouraged or persuaded the appellant to have a go at a second marriage with one Saraswati. She strongly denied that she was guilty of adultery or she conceived and delivered children by some other man than the appellant. She vehemently and strongly asserted that the appellant, after the separation, visited her always and the two children are born from him. She also denied her alleged adulterous relationship with one Sheelchand.

( 4 ) THE trial Court decided the important issues against the appellant and held in paras 6 and 7 of the impugned judgment that the two children born to the respondent are from the appellant himself. The witnesses of the appellant have been disbelieved and that of respondent have been relied upon. The respondent, according to the impugned judgment, is a woman of virtue and has never led an adulterous life.

( 5 ) THE textual Hindu Law did not permit dissolution of marriage. The Hindu Marriage Act created appropos marriage, a relation and status, not defined by contract, but by law. It has provided for the legal dissolution of marriage. So long as such a divorce has not been obtained by one of the spouses, the marriage subsists. The law in the Act lays down as a ground for divorce, the respondent's sexual intercourse with another, after the solemnization of the marriage. In other words, it must have been a willing and knowing act consented to by the respondent in violation of the matrimonial obligation not to have sexual intercourse with any other person than the spouse. Sex loyalty to the spouse is a single loyalty and cannot admit of division or duality. Ground of relief under this clause is known as adultery in matrimonial law, though the clause does not use the term 'adultery'.

( 6 ) ADULTERY is generally proved by presumptive proof based upon (a) circumstantial evidence; (b) evidence of non-access and birth of children; (c) contracting venereal disease, and (d) confessions and admissions. In fact, adultery is seldom susceptible of proof except by circumstances which would lead to that conclusion. The birth of a child to the wife, when there was no access to her by husband during possible period of conception shows, no doubt, the adultery by the wife. But, it must be satisfactorily established that birth of the child was clearly as a result of adulterous intercourse. There must be a clear proof of adultery. Standard of proof to establish a matrimonial offence like adultery is the satisfaction of Court beyond reasonable doubt. Adultery has also to be inferred from the circumstanc