Strict proof of marriage and adultery is essential in divorce cases, and unreasonable delay in presenting the petition raises a presumption of connivance or condonation.

1. This case has been submitted to this Court for confirmation of the decree nisi for dissolution of marriage passed by the Additional District Judge, Akola, on 19th June 1935. The petitioner Manohar presented a petition for the dissolution of his marriage in that Court on 2nd February 1934, alleging that he had married the respondent Chandrawati at the Native Christian Church at Akola about 12 years ago, that they had lived together for 4 years, that his wife had left him about seven years before, and that since then she had been leading the life of a prostitute. He stated, that he was unable to give the name of any individual with whom she had committed the adultery. The respondent stated that she and the petitioner had been married at the Native Christian Church at Akola about 9 years before and that she had left him two years-later because he ill-treated her. She denied that she had been guilty of any adultery. On behalf of the petitioner two witnesses were examined on 2nd February 1935 in the absence of the respondent. The first of these witnesses, who was the petitioner himself, stated that Ghandrawati was his wife, that she had left him about 8 years, before and that since then she had been leading an adulterous life, and that she was at one time kept by one Amman, who had since died. He denied that he ever ill-treated her and said that about two months earlier he had come to know that she had been converted to Islam in 1927. His other witness, Chhote Khan, produced a document showing that Chandrawati had been converted to Islam in 1927, and he stated that Chandrawati had lived with Amman, who had died two months ago, and had been kept by him 3 or 4 years.

2. The only witness on behalf of the respondent was Chandrawati herself who stated that she had married the applicant when she was 11 or 12 years old, had lived with him for 2 or 3 years, and had been turned out. She admitted that she had been converted to Islam and that she had worked as a private servant at Amman's house, but she denied that she had committed adultery and alleged that she had slept at a neighbor's house. Finally, she stated that she had no objection to the dissolution of the marriage. There are obvious defects in the trial and the case must go back. The petitioner has to allege and prove that he professes the Christian religion, that the marriage was solemnised in India, that the parties to the marriage were domiciled in India when the petition was presented, and that the husband and wife reside or last resided together within the local limits of the ordinary jurisdiction of the Court of the District Judge to whom the petition was presented. These facts must be proved by evidence, and the petitioner is not excused from proving them merely because the respondent admits them. A divorce Court has always to bear in mind the possibility of collusion and must insist on strict proof of all the facts alleged. Here the evidence that the parties are married to each other is extremely vague. The petitioner merely stated that the respondent was his wife, and the respondent stated that she married the applicant when she was 11 or 12 years old, which would have been about 24 years ago according to the age given in the deposition sheet. As Sander son, C.J., stated in Singrai v. Puraigi, 1920 AIR(Cal) 658:

It is the well established practice that the Judge should come to a distinct finding upon the question whether the marriage has been solemnised in India and upon what date.

3. A certificate of marriage is not the only way of proving marriage, but it is usually the best way and there should be no difficulty in producing it in this case. Under S. 11, Divorce Act, the petitioner if the husband, must make the alleged adulterer a co-respondent to the said petition unless he is excused from so doing on one of the following grounds to be allowed by the Court:

(1) That the respondent is leading the life of a prostitute and that the petitioner knows of no person with