2. The petitioner, Robert Watson applies to the Court for the dissolution of his marriage with his wife, Frances Watson, on the ground of her adultery with the co-respondent Samuel MacFarlane. The respondent has filed an answer denying the charge.
3. The co-respondent has not appeared.
4. The admitted facts of the base are that the petitioner and the respondent were married on the 18th July 1914 according to Christian rites and forms at the “Sacred Heart of Jesus” Church at Dhurrumtollah Street in Calcutta. They lived together after the marriage and had issue, a son, born on the 25th January 1915. About the end of 1920 difficulties arose between husband and wife and, matters went so far that the petitioner brought a criminal charge against the present co-respondent in, the police Court. A Charge was framed by the Magistrate, but before the case came to trial it is said that friends of the parties intervened and their differences were adjusted. The Magistrate's order dated 19th January 1921 records:
Complainant does not wish to proceed with the case as all differences, have been settled. Complainant is folly satisfied with the explanation given by his wife. Accused undertakes, not to interfere with the complainant and his wife in the future.
5. Strictly speaking, this evidence is only relevant in the present suit as showing that the petitioner at one time had reason to suspect the co-respondent's relations with his wife but as it is admitted that subsequent to the withdrawal of the case, husband and wife again lived to gether for about a year, any misconduct which may have been charged at the time of the police case was evidently condoned by the reconciliation. On 21st January 1922, according to the petitioner and a month later, according to the respondent, a second rupture took place. The petitioner says that his wife left him in order to be free to see the co-respondent. The respondent says that she was driven but of the house by the violence, abuse and drunken habits of her husband. The petitioner charges that the respondent while living in Woodburn Court committed adultery with the co-respondent between 14th May 1922 and 7th June 1922. The present suit was filed on 1st August 1922, but owing to causes over which apparently the parties had no control it did not come up for hearing although on the board on several occasions, till to-day. It is plain upon the pleadings that the burden of proving the respondent's misconduct is heavily upon the petitioner. As I have already said the withdrawal of the previous charge amounts in law to condonation of such offence if committed prior to that date. The duty of the petitioner here is to show that on or between the dates specified in the petition, the respondent was guilty of misconduct with the co-respondent and that must be a matter of proof upon evidence which though it may not be direct must at all events be of such a character as would lead the Court to the conclusion that no other inference than that of misconduct can be derived front it.
6. The petitioner in the box very frankly stated that he himself had no personal knowledge of any misconduct on the part of the respondent; and his information came from two persons whom I under stood him to describe as private detectives. The evidence of these two persons, therefore, is, for the petitioner's purpose, of the utmost importance and it is necessary, when the interests at stake are so high to scrutinize their statements closely His Lordship then discussed the evidence of these two witnesses, Badri Singh and Eban Muhammad Khan and held that no reliance could be placed on their statements. It is, not to be expected that in cases of this kind direct evidenced will ordinarily he available, but there ought to be such clear and cogent evidence both as to inclination, Opportunity and conduct as to lead to the inevitably inference that the offence has been committed. After giving my best attention to the evidence in the case, I feel bound to say that I do not think the petitioner has succeeded in establishing his case.
7. The result, therefore, is that the petition is dismissed with costs on scale No. 2. So far as the co-respondent is concerned, the petition is dismissed with out costs.