Short Note : 1. The petitioner and the respondent were married according to the Christian rites On 25-2-1964 at Cholong Church. The petitioner being in military service used to remain out on duty for sufficiently long periods. According to the petitioner, one Mikhal Raona was employed as a domestic servant to look after the work of the household. As stated by the petitioner nearabout in the month of June, 1967, when the petitioner returned to the village on leave, he learnt, that his wife was living in adultery with Mikhal Raona who worked as a servant in the household. Under these circumstances, the petitioner husband, claimed divorce on the ground that his wife was living in adultery. Held : It is true that direct proof of adultery is very rare and even if produced, the Courts will look upon it with disfavour as it is highly improbable that any person could be a witness to such acts in normal course. But it is equally true that the party who alleges adultery must prove at least by presumptive proof based on cogent circumstantial evidence and that the burden of proving the misconduct lies heavily on said party. The evidence must be clear and cogent both as to inclination and conduct so as to lead to the fair inference that adultery has been committed. The Court is not bound to infer the misconduct from the evidence of opportunity alone unless there is sufficient material to establish inclination and such conduct which may fairly lead to inference of adultery. It is true that according to the provisions of section 134 of the Evidence Act, a particular number of witnesses are not necessary for proving a certain fact and a fact can be said to be proved when the Court is satisfied that its existence is so probable on the available evidence that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that the said fact exists. In the present case, the facts are not such. In the present case, the facts are not such. On the contrary, in view of the inordinate unexplained delay of 8 years coupled with the undisputed circumstances that Mikhal Raona was employed as a domestic servant, his actual age being not available, his name having been deleted and the petition having, been prosecuted in his absence it would not be proper to draw an inference that the respondent is living in adultery with him, merely on the say of the petitioner. Even otherwise, inaction on the part of the petitioner for more than 8 years despite knowledge of the fact of the alleged adultery, indicates condonation of the default. Prem Masih v. Kumudini Bai. 1974 JLJ 247 , Samal Bahadursingh v. Roshnisingh and another, 1960 JLJ 88 , distinguished. Petition dismissed.