Short Note : 1. It was a reference made by the District Judge Ratlam, under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for the confirmation of a decree nisi for the dissolution of the marriage of the petitioner Sharad Kumar and his wife Agnes. Held: On going through the record, this Court is satisfied that the decree passed by the District Judge deserves to be confirmed. In support of the allegations of adultery, the petitioner has examined himself and in his statement, has deposed about the adulterous life of his wife. His oral testimony in this regard is supported by the letters Ex.P/1, P/3 and P/4 which are in the handwriting of the first respondent with whose handwriting the petitioner is well acquainted. The petitioner has further deposed that due to the adulterous life led by his wife, she gave birth to a child out of that illicit connection and there appears no reason to doubt the evidence of the petitioner which is also corroborated by the testimony of Babubhai (P.W. 2) who, in the company of the petitioner, also found the respondent sitting in a dosed room at the house of the co-respondent, and, in the presence of this witness also; the wife again prayed for mercy by giving a clean admission of her adulterous life. Thus, there can be no doubt that in this case there was adultery between the respondent and the co-respondent. This Court has, however, to see whether there was any case of connivance either on the part of the petitioner or condonation of the adultery which had taken place. There is no presumption that there is connivance on the part of the husband and the conduct of the petitioner clearly shows that taking undue advantage of the absence of the petitioner on account of his service in the Indian Army far away, the first respondent started leading an adulterous life and the petitioner was helpless. Though the wife attributes her lapse from virtue due to the absence of her husband, for which she expressed regret as per Ex. P-4. still it is clear that the husband was not master of himself when the wife committed marital offence. A promise by wife that she would not any more repeat the offence is implicit in every case where the husband forgives his wife for the past and receives her once again as his companion. P-4. still it is clear that the husband was not master of himself when the wife committed marital offence. A promise by wife that she would not any more repeat the offence is implicit in every case where the husband forgives his wife for the past and receives her once again as his companion. No express promise from the wife to create that obligation on her part is, necessary. If the offence is, therefore, repeated or anything having the semblance of future repetition is present the original guilt of the erring partner will be revived. Therefore despite promise, when the first respondent had dealings with the co-respondent and continued to exchange correspondence with him, her conduct showed that she was contemplating to revert to her old life of adultery and thus, it is further clear that the conduct of the petitioner does not show that he ever condoned the adulterous life of his wife with the co-respondent. Decree of divorce confirmed. Petition allowed.