JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Gopi filed a petition for divorce on the ground of adultery by her husband Meghraj with one Pyari. The petition was dismissed on the ground of delay. It was held that the allegation of adultery is proved. Both the wife and the husband have filed appeal and cross-objection. The counsel for the appellant wife submitted that after the finding of adultery, there was no good ground for rejecting the claim only on the ground that there was some delay. According to him the delay was not at all proved and in any case it could not be fatal in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Mr. Gupta on the contrary submitted that even the allegation of adultery has not been proved. According to him the entire fabric of the applicant has been built on the assumption that the summons was served on Pyari at the address of non-applicant. But this fact is erroneous and incorrect. He also submitted that Nata was not proved and there must be very strong evidence to prove adultery. According to him (Gupta) merely because some vague evidence has been led about Mst. Pyari staying in the house of Meghraj, no inference of adultery can be drawn. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has controverted the above facts and circumstances and taken me through the record. 4. I have given a very thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned Counsel and also examined the relevant record. 5. It is unfortunate that the husband and the wife have not been able to pull on together after marriage. 6. The evidence produced by the applicant-wife undoubtedly proved that Mst. Pyari is living with Meghraj quite for some time. Birdichand PW 2 has also stated that when Meghraj was called and asked to keep Gopi wife, he stated that he has already contracted a second marriage. Similar is the statement of PW 3 father of the girl Gopi. The evidence recorded by the lower trial court clearly proves that Pyari is living with Meghraj and leading ahdulterous life. DW 2 Bhoma who was examined in rebuttal avoided answering questions and was evasive when a question was put to him that Pyari is living with Meghraj, DW 3 also admitted that he has not gone in the house of Meghraj. DW 2 Bhoma who was examined in rebuttal avoided answering questions and was evasive when a question was put to him that Pyari is living with Meghraj, DW 3 also admitted that he has not gone in the house of Meghraj. It would be thus clear that there is no rebuttal of the evidence of the applicant. 7. So far as the question of delay is concerned, it is natural for the parents of the girl to make an attempt and persuade the son-in-law to take the daughter and lead a happy life. Divorce in India is not a well-given event in the society and the people usually have got an apthy against it and that tried to avoid such an unfortunate litigation as far as was possible. It is well known that a divorced lady usually is not acceptable in our society and is looked down and seldom gives a spouse a chance to marry again. The parents of a divorced wife usually are miserable thereafter and therefore, the natural instinct is to avoid the evil day as far as possible. In such circumstances the efforts of the parents to have the Panchayat and to make an attempt to send girl Gopi to Meghraj again and again was probable and natural. Merely delay was caused warranting dismissal of the petition. 8. Consequently the appeal is accepted and decree of divorce in favour of Mst. Gopi against her husband Meghraj is granted. The cross-objection is dismissed. The appellant would get costs of both the courts.Appeal accepted with Costs. *******