Judgment The parties are Christians and they were married on 30-1-1979 at village Khirwakeech, district Ranchi, Bihar. They lived together as husband and wife for about a week at Hoshangabad. On 9-2-197 the respondent ran away from the house of the petitioner without informing him. Since then she has deserted him. The petitioner husband tiled a petition under section 10 of the Act alleging that the respondent since the solemnization of her marriage with the petitioner has been guilty of adultery. His case is that on 20-1-1979 he went to her parents' house in search of her and he was surprised to find that she was living with a young Punjabi gentleman as his wife. Since then she has given birth to a child through that Punjabi gentleman. The petitioner made several attempts to bring her back but she refused, on the other hand she sent a registered notice dated 6-11-1982 that she is prepared to take a divorce from the petitioner. A registered lawyer's notice was sent by the petitioner to the respondent saying that she was living as a wife of Punjabi gentleman and has begotten a child but this was not replied, so the present petition was filed. The notice was duly served on the respondent but she remained absent and the case was proceeded ex-parte. In spite of the best efforts of the petitioner, he could not know the name of the said Punjabi gentleman and so he has not been joined as a co-respondent. Petitioner Juel Tope examined himself as P. W. 1 and proved his case. His evidence has gone unrebutted. Relying on his evidence, decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage has been passed by the District Judge. A notice of this proceeding was sent to the respondent but she has not appeared. A Full Bench of this Court in K. J. v. K. (AIR 1952 Nagpur 395) held that it was clear that the respondent was avoiding appearance in Court in order to escape being examined as a witness or an adverse inference drawn upon his refusal to be so examined and therefore no notice of the proceedings was necessary. That was only continuation of the original petition. This apart, there is a registered letter of the respondent Ex. P. 3 wherein she bad given her intention for dissolution of the marriage. That was only continuation of the original petition. This apart, there is a registered letter of the respondent Ex. P. 3 wherein she bad given her intention for dissolution of the marriage. We have heard the learned counsel and gone through the record and we are satisfied that decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage has been rightly passed by the learned District Judge. There is no reason why the statement of petitioner should not be accepted. The petitioner's statement has gone unrebutted and there is no evidence to the contrary. We are also satisfied that there is no collusion between the parties nor the petitioner connived at for the commission of the adultery by the respondent with a Punjabi gentleman through whom she has now begotten a child. Since the name of the alleged adulteror is not known, he has not been joined as a co-respondent. Another Full Bench of this Court in Lalit v. Levina ( 1979 JLJ 299 ) has held that previously the matrimonial offences have to be proved by the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt but recently the view has been modified and it has been held that the petitioner is only required to prove his case by preponderance of probabilities and the decree of probability depend upon the gravity of the offence. Unless the facts alleged by the petitioner were true, the respondent would not have deserted him soon after their marriage. AIR 1952 Nag. 395 and 1979 JLJ 299 relied on. Decree made absolute.