JUDGMENT Madeley, J. - This judgment will cover two petitions, one filed by Mrs. Doris Slade against her husband Mr. Frederick Dugan Slade in the Court of the District Judge, Lucknow, on the 25th September, 1943, for a judicial separation on the grounds of adultery and cruelty ; and the other filed by Mr. F. D. Slade against Mrs. D. Slade in this Court on the 7th August, 1944, for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. These two petitions have been consolidated by an order dated the 17th Novem- ber, 1944, and have been tried in the this Court. The divorce petition has been treated as the leading case, and the evidence recorded in that case is to be read as evidence in both cases. 2. In the petition for judicial separation Mrs. Slade claims custody of all her four children, Frederick Slade born on the 20tb June, 1951, David Slade born on the 15th April, 1936, Shirley Slade born on the 12th September, 1937, and Althia Slade born on the 5th January,. 1941. She also claims three-fourths of the entire emoluments of her husband for maintenance of herself and all the four childern and costs of the case. In the divorce petition Mr. Slade cites Lt. Harry Gardinor as correspondent and claims a decree nisi for dissolution of his marriage with Mrs. Slade on account of adultery with Lt. Gardiner. He also claims custody of all the children including the youngest, Althia, who is at present living with her mother. From Lt. (now Mr.) Harry Gardiner he claims Rs. 10,000 as damages for breaking up a happy home and also all the costs of the case. * * * * 3. I now come to the letter Exh. A-2, dated the 10th July, 1944, written by Mrs. Slade and addressed to Gardiner. This was in an envelope, Exh. A-3, ready to be registered. Slade for the first time became suspicious of the conduct of his wife and Gardiner after receiving this letter. He says that he knew nothing before about their relationship not being proper. 4. The letter starts "My Darling Harry." It is written in an affectionate style and ends So Cheeri, and God Bless you. With all my fond love and kisses. Write soon love. As a postscript is written, You do play this game well X O X O". He says that he knew nothing before about their relationship not being proper. 4. The letter starts "My Darling Harry." It is written in an affectionate style and ends So Cheeri, and God Bless you. With all my fond love and kisses. Write soon love. As a postscript is written, You do play this game well X O X O". At a top is written I received your R, letter and cash, Ta so much. Do not worry about the room, we will fix things up when you come. Yes, I am looking forward to you coming on leave. So hurry up about it and your not going to A ambagh, so you can forget about that" etc. In the body of the letter we find "you can please .yourself wherever you want to stop during your leave it is up to you not me to suggest this point. 5. It is clear that this intercepted letter i is not admissible in evidence against Gardiner. In Dr. Vrasapillai Gabriel v. A. S. Eliatamby AIR 1925 P.C. 229 it was held Any intercepted correspondence between the respondents in divorce cases cannot be con- sidered as evidence against the person to whom it is addressed for any purpose whatever. 6. This applies to India tbjough it was a case from Ceylon. Their Lordships held The Evidence Ordinance of Ceyl on is merely the application to Csylon of the Indian Evidence Act. 7. To understand the reasons why the Ceylon Court considered that the letters were admissible, it is necessary to read the whole judgment of the Privy Council. I do not consider it necessary to go into that judgment fully here. One passage may, however, be quoted from the body of the judgment, He (the Chief Justice of Ceylon) came to the conclusion that the Evidence Ordinance which is merely the application to Ceylon of the Indian Evidence Act had practically swept away all the English law relating to hearsay. Were this so the consequences mast long ago have bean mani- fest in the decisions in the Courts of India, and in those of the' Judicial Committee of the Privy Couacil, yet in 1872, the very yeir of the passing of the Indian Evidence Act, it was laid down in Hay v. Gordon 10 B.L.R. 301 that no statements of Mrs. Gordon (the respondent in divorce), written or verbal, are according to well-known principles of law admissible again-t Lord William Hay' (the co-respondent.) Their Lordships have been unable to find any authority for the contention that since that case was decided any other rule has prevailed in the Indian Courts. 8. In the Law Journal Reports 1860, Vol XXIX, Probate, Matrimonial and Admiralty P. C. p. 178 at p. 191 (Robinson v. Robin- son and Lane (1860) 29 L.J. (M. & A.) 178) it was held in respect of admissions contained in a diary kept by the respondent, Not only is the danger of collusion to be gaurded against, but other sinister motives which might lead to the making of such admissions, if, though unsupported, they could effect their put pose, are sufficient to render it the duty of the Court to pro- ceed with the utmost caution in giving effect to statements of this kind; the more so, as it must always be borne in mind that the co-respondent, though not in a legal point of view interested in the result, inasmuch as from the absence of evidence available as against him, he is entitled to an acquittal, has yet, socially and morally, the deepest interest in the result. Nevertheless, if, after looking at the evidence with all the distrust and vigilance with which it ought to be regarded, the Court should come to the conclusion, first, that the evidence is trustworthy; secondly, that it amounts to a .clear, distinct, and unequivocal admission of adultery, we have no hesitation in saying that the Court ought to act upon such evidence, and afford to the injured party the redress sought for. 9. The Court in this case did not act upon the evidence afforded by the diary because it came to the .conclusion that the respondent was apt to exaggerate in relation to her intercourse with men. 10. The other case cited is in Volume 35 of the same series, Probate and Matrimonial Causes p. 8 (Williams v. Williams and Padfield*.) The confession of the wife in this case was made in circumstances which left no doubt about her guilt. The Court reiterated the danger of acting upon admissions alone. 11. It is clear from these decisions that the letter is evidence against Mrs. Slade, but it is very poor evidence. The Court reiterated the danger of acting upon admissions alone. 11. It is clear from these decisions that the letter is evidence against Mrs. Slade, but it is very poor evidence. It contains no admission of adultery: Though, according to the other evidence, the guilcy association of the respondent and the ccrespondence had been going on for some considerable time, she says at one place that it is for Gardiner to suggest where he should go and live during his leave. Gardiner denies ever having received such an affectionate letter from her. Mrs. Slade states that Gardiner had helped her with money and she would have loved any one who had helped her in that way at the time because she was so hard up. In my opinion in the absence of other reliable evidence against her this letter is not sufficient to bring home to her the charge of adultery, or to prove that guilty affection existed between her and Gardiner. * * * * 12. I find that no adultery is proved against Mrs. Slade and that no adultery or cruelty is proved against Mr. Slade. It follows that both the petition for dissolution of marriage and that for judicial separation must be dismissed. No question of damages arises and the only question remaining is as to costs. Since Mr. Slade and Mrs. Slade are still man and wife, Mr. Slade will have to pay the costs of Mrs. Slade's judicial separation petition though it has been dismissed. He will also have to pay his own and Mrs. Slade's costs in the divorce. I do not, however, propose to make him pay Mr. Gardiner's costs as it appears to me that Mr. Gardiner had put himself in an amiguous position which might naturally lead Mr. Slade to suspect him. In a sense therefore Mr. Gardiner brought this trouble upon himself. He will therefore pay his own costs. I fix Counsel's fee at Rs. 400 in the divorce case. Both petitions are therefore dismissed with the above order as to costs.