Honble KOKJE, A.C.J–This is a Reference made by Family Court, Ajmer, for confirmation of decree of divorce dated 16.1.1993, dissolving the marriage between the parties. (2). The parties who profess Christianity were married on 23.7.1990 at Ajmer. They lived together for some time but ultimately on 28.7.1991, according to the pe- titioner husband, she left the matrimonial home. The petitioner further alleged that on searching the luggage left by the respondent wife some objectionable correspondence and photographs were discovered. The petitioner came to know from the correspondence and photographs that his wife respondent No. 1 was carrying on immoral affair with respondent No. 2, one Shri Sunil Goyal. He, therefore, sought a divorce on the ground of adultry committed by the wife. In reply to the petition, the wife respondent No. 1 denied having committed adultry but put forward a claim for divorce on her own grounds. She alleged that the petitioner was not behaving properly with her. He used to get drunk and used to assault her. Respondent No. 2 Sunil Goyal did not participate in the proceedings and the proceedings went on ex- parte against him. Petitioner Stanely D. Crooze examined himself and his mother Respondent No. 1 Kamini examined herself and her father. The petitioner relied on all the correspondence and photographs for proving the adultry. There was no cross-examination on this point also on behalf of respondents. Petitioners mother also relied on the photographs and correspondence in support of adultry. She was also not cross-examined. Respondent No. 1 Kamini herself denied the allegation of adultry in her examination-in-chief but she deposed that the petitioner had bea- ten her and she herself would like to get a divorce. Respondent No. 1 Kaminis mother also denied the allegations of adultry against her daughter but stated that her daughter was being treated cruely by the petitioner. There was no cross-examination on her testimony also. A perusal of the documents produced, shows that there was clear evidence of adultry committed by respondent No. 1 with respon- dent No. 2. An obscene greeting is on record which could only be exchanged between parties who intimately know each other. It is not a greeting which would be sent by any one to a normal friend belonging to the other sex. An obscene greeting is on record which could only be exchanged between parties who intimately know each other. It is not a greeting which would be sent by any one to a normal friend belonging to the other sex. The following portion of the greeting leaves us in no doubt that the relationship between the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was physical and it was not a case of Pla- tonic love. We reproduce the portion here under:- ``While I am writing to you, I am listening to an endless love song; and I feel with this deep and powerful music invading me. You too have invaded me, overpowered me, my mind, my soul, my heart I am so full of you, of love for you darling that the moment we are together. I just can not stop myself from touching you, showering you with silky caresses and velvety kisses. I love loving you Darling: I love you lots; (3). The other two letters written by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 are in fact an attempt to black-mail emotionally and otherwise. He has threatened her with showing certain obviously objectionable photographs to her husband. The other letters also leave no doubt that relationship between the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was adulterous and not innocuous. We, therefore, find that the decree is sustainable on the ground of adultry and deserves to be confirmed in favour of the petitioner on this count. The learned Judge of the Family Court has obviously erred in granting it under Section 22 of the Act also because Section 22 relates judicial separation and has no relation with the grounds of divorce. The granting of divorce on the ground of desertion and incompatibility of the nature of the spouses and irrevocable failure of the marriage can not be sustained. However, since we find that the decree can be sustained on the ground of adultry, we would confirm the decree on that ground in favour of the petitioner.