JUDGMENT N. P. Singh, U. P. Singh & B. N. Agrawal, JJ. This is a reference under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') made by the District Judge, Muzaffarpur, for confirmation by this Court. 2. It appears that the applicant filed an application for a decree for divorce under the provisions of the Act against his wife (respondent no. 1) on the ground that she was guilty of adultery and was leading an adulterous life with respondent no. 2. In the application filed under section 10 of the Act the applicant gave the details as to how the applicant and respondent no.1 were married. He has also given the details as to how after marriage respondent no.1 developed an illicit connection with respondent no. 2. Specific instances of movement of respondent nos. 1 and 2 together including spending nights in the same room have been given in the application. 3. During trial the applicant examined himself and supported the allegations made in the application on oath. The charge of adultery levelled by the applicant was contested by respondent no.1. She also examined some witnesses in support of her charge that the applicant himself was leading in adulterous life with some other lady. 4. On the basis of materials on record the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the applicant had been able to prove the charge of adultery against respondent no.1. On the finding aforesaid a decree for divorce was passed. Respondent no.1 has entered appearance in this reference through Mr. N.K. Agrawal. Mr. Agrawal, stated before us that he has been instructed by respondent no.1 not to challenge the decree for divorce passed by the learned District Judge because respondent no.1 is no more interested in getting the said judgment set aside by this court. In view of absence of any specific provision merely on the basis of the attitude of one or the other party, it is not possible for this court either to confirm or not to confirm the decree for divorce passed by the District Judge, but while appreciating the evidence on record that can be taken as a circumstance while considering the question of confirmation of decree for divorce. 5. 5. From the judgment of the learned District Judge it appears that he has fully discussed the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and accepted the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant on the basis of which he was satisfied that after the marriage between the applicant and respondent no. 1, respondent no.1 developed an illicit connection with respondent no. 2 and started living with him. The applicant has stated on oath that he had seen respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the same room and others had similarly seen them living as husband and wife. It has been pointed out in several cases that for proof of the charge of adultery for the purpose of divorce under the provisions of the Act the standard of proof need not be that of a criminal case. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of a Special Bench in the case of Binod Anand Lakra V. Smt. Belulah Lakra and another ( 1982 BBCJ 486 : 1982 PLJR). We are of the opinion that on the materials on the record the learned District Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that a decree for divorce should be passed for dissolution of the marriage between the applicant and respondent no. 1. 6. We, accordingly, confirm the said decree for divorce. 7. Before we part with this order, we may mention that during the pendency of the proceeding for divorce before the District Judge a compromise petition had been filed on behalf of the applicant and respondent no.1 in respect of custody of the daughter. In that compromise petition both the parties had agreed that the daughter should remain in custody of the wife i.e. respondent no.1. The learned District Judge in his order has directed that the daughter shall remain in custody of respondent no.1, her mother, till the decree for divorce is confirmed, and she will maintain her. Here the I counsel appearing for the applicant and respondent no.1 have agreed before us that the said I daughter of the applicant and respondent no.1 shall remain in custody of her mother, respondent no.1, till she attains majority.