Judgment N.P.Singh, U.P.Singh and B.N.Agrawal JJ. 1. A decree for dissolution of the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 has been forwarded to this Court by the District Judge, Dumka for confirmation in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. In appears that the applicant filed an application under Sec. 10 of the Act levelling a charge of adultery against his wife, respondent No. 1, and sought a decree for divorce on that ground. I, may be mentioned that Under section 10 any husband may present a petition to the District Court or to the High Court, paying that his marriage may be dissolved on the ground that his wife has been guilty of adultery. The claim made on behalf of the applicant was contested by respondent no. 1 who refuted the allegation that she was guilty of adultery. The learned District Judge, on consideration of the materials on record, cams to the conclusion that the applicant has been able to prove that respondent No. 1 was freely mixing with respondent no. 2, Brother Birendra Prasad, and; on the basis of the materials, finding has been recorded in favour of the applicant. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and respondent No. 1, the wife, at the outset, informed the Court that, after the decree for divorce was passed by the District Judge, at the intervention of the two sons of the applicant, the difference between the applicant and respondent No. 1 has been settled and they have started living together as husband and wife. It was pointed out that as there is no provision under the Act enabling this Court, while considering the question of confirmation of the decree for divorce, to set aside the decree on the ground that later the parties have entitled into settlement or have come to understanding, the question of confirmation of the decree for divorce has to be considered on merit. Normally, in View of the subsequent development, we would have disposed of this application on that ground alone but, in absence of any provision, we have to examine the judgment of the learned District Judge, on merit. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. Normally, in View of the subsequent development, we would have disposed of this application on that ground alone but, in absence of any provision, we have to examine the judgment of the learned District Judge, on merit. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, the wife, pointed out they from a bare reference to the application under Sec. 10 itself it shall appear that the applicant has made some vague allegations in respect of relationship of respondent no. 1 with respondent No. 2. It was pointed out that in paragraph 4 it has been stated by the applicant that respondent no. 1, his wife has given birth to a second son of 26th November 1972, but the applicant has doubts about the legitimacy of that child. In this connection it is also relevant to refer to paragraph 8 of the petition where the applicant has stated that his wife, respondent No. 1, used to reside at Sahibganj in the Teachers quarters allotted to the applicant in the campus of St. Xavier school. Thereafter he has said that his wife on different dates which were not known to the applicant committed adultery with co respondent No. 2 in the petitioners said residential quarters during the absence of the applicant. No details of any such act have been mentioned in the petition. In paragraph 9, it has been said that the applicant could learn about the adulterous relationship between respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from public scandal and murmuring which was going on in the school campus. Lastly, it has been said, in paragraph 10, that the applicant learnt from one of his sons that there used to be some communications between respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 through some messengers and letters. 5. During the trial the applicant examined himself and supported the statements made by him in the application aforesaid. The elder son of the applicant was examined as a witness who was aged about eight years when the application under Sec. 10 was filed for divorce. He in his evidence stated that he had seen respondent No. 2 coming to the residence of the applicant and meeting his mother, respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 the wife, also examined herself and refuted the allegations levelled against her by the applicant. She denied on oath that she had any illegitimate relationship with respondent no. 2. 6. He in his evidence stated that he had seen respondent No. 2 coming to the residence of the applicant and meeting his mother, respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 the wife, also examined herself and refuted the allegations levelled against her by the applicant. She denied on oath that she had any illegitimate relationship with respondent no. 2. 6. Sec. 10 enables any husband to present a petition for dissolution of his marriage only on the ground that since the solemnization of the marriage his wife has been guilty of adultery. As such, on plain reading, the onus to prove the charge of adultery is on the husband and before a decree for divorce is passed the Court has to be satisfied that the said charge levelled by the husband against his wife for seeking divorce has been established on the materials produced before the Court. It is true that the charge of adultery has not to be proved like prosecution at a criminal trial. It was observed in the case of Binod Anand Lakra V/s. Smt. Belulah Lakra and Anr. (1982 B.B.C.J. 486) by a Special Bench of this Court after referring to several judgments as follows : "It has been held that the standard of proof in a case of matrimonial offence in a petition for divorce is not as strict as in a criminal case where the proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and accordingly or reject the argument of Mr. Dayal." 7. But, at the same time, any vague allegation of adultery against the wife cannot be accepted. The husband has to lead either direct evidence or to prove the circumstances, on the basis of which the Court has to be satisfied that the charge of adultery levelled against the wife has been established. 8. In the instant case, as already pointed out, in the petition under Sec. 10 itself, only some vague allegations have been made. It has been said by the applicant that he learnt about the adulterous relationship between respondent No. 1 and respondent no. 2 from public scandal and murmuring they was going on there in the School campus itself. In the present day in societe many public scandals have no substantial basis. It has been said by the applicant that he learnt about the adulterous relationship between respondent No. 1 and respondent no. 2 from public scandal and murmuring they was going on there in the School campus itself. In the present day in societe many public scandals have no substantial basis. As such, in normal course, the applicant was required to lead some better evidence in respect of the allegation levelled against his wife. In the aforesaid judgment of the Special Bench of this Court in the case of Binod Anand Lakra V/s. Smt. Belulah & Anr. (supra), the learned Judge have observed as follows : "Having regard to the standard or society, of which the petitioner and his wife are members, it is difficult to suggest that the respondent was not expected to have male acquaintance. Since 1963 the respondent has been working in the Central Coalfields Limited (earlier N.C.D.C.) where she is acquainted with hundreds of persons. In such a situation, visit by a co-worker is also not unusual. The petitioner himself did not consider it so when the co-respondent started visiting the couple since 1976, until according to this case, a sweater was presented to him by his wife." 9. There is no dispute, in the present case, that respondent No. 2 during the relevant time was an Administrator of the School in question in which the applicant was working as a Teacher. The applicant as well as respondent No. 2 were living in the same campus of the aforesaid school. In that view of the matter, under changed circumstances, there could be nothing unusual in respondent No. 2 at time visiting the residence of the applicant or even meeting the wife of the applicant respondent No. 1. In our opinion, on the materials on record, it is not possible to record a categorical finding that the applicant has been able to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that his wife, respondent No. 1, has been guilty of adultery because of which a decree for divorce should have been passed. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that it is not possible to confirm the decree for divorce passed by the District Judge, Dumka. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Judge, Dumka is set aside, the decree is not confirmed and the reference is discharge.