BHIMIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal under S. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) is by the husband against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Chitradurga in H. Misc. No. 64 of 1965, dismissing his petition under S. 13 (1) (i) of the Act for a decree of divorce dissolving his marriage with the respondent. ( 2 ) THE appellant's case is: The respondent is his legally wedded wife. Their marriage was solemnised about 12 years ago. A daughter aged about 8 years and a son aged about 6 years were born out of the wedlock. His allegation against her are briefly as follows. She is a woman of loose character. She had eloped with one Ranga, a carpenter, from his (the appellant's) village about 5 years, perior to the date of the petition. She was brought back by her father from Channagiri, and since then she has been living with him. She had developed illicit intimacy with one dasa who had been engaged by her father to construct his house. She went to her sister's house at Jogammanahalli and there she was found sleeping with Dasa in the front room of the house of one barber. The villagers locked that room and subsequently chastised Dasa. A petition was also given to the police of Hosadurga by the villagers. A panchayat was convened in Hosadurga town and the respondent was advised to lead a virtuous life, but she did not heed to the advice of the elders and has been living in adultery since five years and has abandoned the appellant. ( 3 ) THE respondent has denied the allegations of her having lived in adultery with Rangappa at Channagiri or with Dasa at Jogammanahalli. Her case is that she has been a dutiful and chaste wife and that the appellant being instigated by his uncle, aunt and cousins, has filed the petition making false allegations against her. She has stated that she was ready and willing to get back to the matrimonial home and live with the appellant. According to her, there are, therefore, no grounds to dissolve the marriage. ( 4 ) THE appellant examined seven witnesses including himself to prove the allegations that the respondent has been living in adultery. The respondent examined three witnesses including herself in support of her case. According to her, there are, therefore, no grounds to dissolve the marriage. ( 4 ) THE appellant examined seven witnesses including himself to prove the allegations that the respondent has been living in adultery. The respondent examined three witnesses including herself in support of her case. ( 5 ) AFTER a consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and all material facts and circumstances in the case, the learned civil Judge reached the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove that the respondent had been living in adultery within the meaning of S. 13 (1) (i) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the learned Civil Judge has declined to grant the relief sought for by the appellant and dismissed the petition. ( 6 ) THE short question for decision is, whether the appellant has proved that the respondent has been living in adultery. ( 7 ) IT is generally difficult to adduce direct evidence of adultery, and, adultery can be proved by circumstantial evidence. ( 8 ) MR. Shivananjundappa, learned Advocate for the appellant, took us through the evidence of the appellant's and the respondent's witnesses and made his comments on the judment of the trial Court. ( 9 ) BEFORE discussing the evidence, we shall consider a legal contention raised by Mr. T. R. Subbanna learned counsel for the respondent, regarding the unnecessary and improper delay on the part of the appellant in instituting the proceedings. Mr. Subbanna invited our attention to the provisions of S. 23 (1) (d) of the Act, which read :-"23 (1) (d):- In any proceeding under this Act, whether defended or not, if the Court is satisfied that- (d) there has not been any unnecessary or improper delay in instituting the proceeding, and then, in such a case but not otherwise the Court shall decree such relief accordingly. "mr. Subbanna pointed out that even according to the appellant's own averment in his petition, the respondent left his house about 5 years prior to the petition, to live in adultery with carpenter Rangappa. Mr. Subbanna submitted that the petition for divorce was presented five years after the respondent is alleged to have begun to live in adultery. "mr. Subbanna pointed out that even according to the appellant's own averment in his petition, the respondent left his house about 5 years prior to the petition, to live in adultery with carpenter Rangappa. Mr. Subbanna submitted that the petition for divorce was presented five years after the respondent is alleged to have begun to live in adultery. ( 10 ) AS regards the respondent's affair with Dasa Bovi, the allegation in the petition is that sometime prior to the date of filing the petition the respondent was living in adultery with Dasa Bovi. But in his evidence, the appellant has stated that about 2 or 3 months subsequent to her eloping with carpenter Rangappa, she was found sleeping with P. W. 5 dasappa at Jogammanahalli. PW. 6 Narayanappa has also stated in his evidence that her sleeping with P. W. 5 Dasappa was about 3 or 4 months alter her elopement with carpenter Rangappa. Thus, on the showing of the appellant himself, the alleged adulterous affair at Jogammanahalli also took place about 4 or 5 years before filing the petition. ( 11 ) THE contention of Mr. Subbanna is that there is unnecessary and improper delay on the part of the appellant in instituting the proceedings for a decree ot divorce against the respondent. He further urged that there is no explanation offered by the appellant for such inordinate delay in instituting the proceedings. He contended that on this ground alone, the court should decline to grant any relief to him. He relied upon the following passage in Mulla's Hindu Law, 13th Edition, P-726 :-"where the ground of the petition for judicial separation or divorce is adultery and there is an issue as to unnecessary delay or improper delay or when it appeals to the Court that there has been undue delay in instituting the proceedings, there are two questions in such case which first require to be considered, namely, when did the petitioner first know or have reason to believe that the respondent had committed adultery? and, when did the petitioner first take action in order to obtain the relief? A further question to be considered is whether there is some reasonable explanation for the delay and if there is some explanation which is satisfactory the delay cannot be said to be unnecessary or improper. and, when did the petitioner first take action in order to obtain the relief? A further question to be considered is whether there is some reasonable explanation for the delay and if there is some explanation which is satisfactory the delay cannot be said to be unnecessary or improper. "it is clear from the above that while deciding the question of unnecessary and improper delay, the Court has to find out as to when the appellant first came to know that the respondent had committed adultery and also when he instituted proceedings to obtain the relief. It is also necessary to find out whether he has given any reasonable explanation for the delay. The petition allegations coupled with the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4, 6 and 7, indicate that the appellant first came to know that the respondent had committed adultery 4 or 5 years prior to the filing of the petition. In spite of such knowledge, he approached the Court for relief after a long lapse of 4 to 5 years. He has not explained the inordinate delay in filing the petition for relief. We are satisfied that in the instant case, as contended by Mr. Subbanna, there has been unnecessary and improper delay in instituting the proceedings. Therefore, on this ground alone, a deforce for divorce can be refused. ( 12 ) HOWEVER, we will not rest our decision entirely on that ground. But we shall examine the appellant's case on merits also. "27. We have no doubt in our mind as to the legal proposition that if a husband proves beyond reasonable doubt that his wife has been seen absenting herself from his house for a long time and has been seen in the company of a total stranger to his family and that no reasonable explanation is given by her or that she has given a false explanation for her having been seen in the company of that stranger at different places or in a room will give rise to a reasonable inference that she has contracted illicit connection with that man and has been living in adultery. The standard of proof required in such a case is similar to the one in a criminal case. The evidence must be independent, disinterested, cogent, reliable and worthy of credit. The standard of proof required in such a case is similar to the one in a criminal case. The evidence must be independent, disinterested, cogent, reliable and worthy of credit. The evidence adduced by the appellant which is discussed above, falls short of the required standard, besides being unsatisfactory and insufficient to prove that the respondent went in the company of rangappa or that she was found sleeping with P. W. 5 Dasa Bovi in a room in Jogammanahalli. Mr. Shivananjundappa relied on a number of decisions in support of his case. The principle of law laid down in those decisions, in our opinion, does not bear on the facts of this case. 28. The learned Civil Judge has no misapprehension as to the mode of proof of adultery and has elaborately discussed the evidence adduced by the appellant and also by the respondent, and has rightly reached the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove that the respondent was living in adultery within the meaning of S. 13 (1) (i) of the Act. Thus, even on merits, the appellant has no case. The order of the trial Court does not call for interference. 29. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 50. " --- *** --- .