ORDER Singh, C.J. -- 1. It is confirmation of judgment and decree dated 14.3.1997 in Civil Suit No. 18A of 1994 passed by Additional District Judge, Sighi under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act 1869 (for short the Act) dissolving marriage between Sunil Masih and Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih and awarding Rs. 50,000.00 as damages under sections 34/35, which is sought under section 17 the Act. 2. Marriage between Sunil Masih and Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih was solemnized according to the Christian religion at Arch Highsys of Kolkata church of christ the king. Out of the wedlock, three children are born. Allegation of Sunil Masih is that Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih developed illicit relations with Paramjit Singh for the past one year. In his absence, Pararrtjit Singh would come to his house and have illicit relations with Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih. On 9.9.1993, when they were involved in illicit relations, he along with his neighbours reached his house and caught both of them red handed. During night duty, she would call Paramjit Singh to the house and spena the night sleeping in one bed and have intercourse. On being asked not to do so, they would resort to beating him. Openly she would roam about with Paramjit Singh. On 14.12.1993, she went to Kolkata with Paramjit Singh and stayed there for a week before returning to Singrauli. Both of them went to pay obeisance in Gurdwara situate at Jayant on the occasion of Gurunanak Jayanti and she refused to go to church stating that Christmas was not her festival. She was of Paramjit Singh and had nothing to do with him. When he attempted to convince her, she straightway stated that in case he tried to prevent her from meeting and maintaining relations with Paramjit Singh, she would commit suicide or run away with Paramjit Singh. After September 8, 1993 till filing of the petition for divorce, he had no physical relationship with Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih since she did not allow him to do so. On 17.1.1994, when he came to the house after duty, he found Paramjit Singh at his house and Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih sitting in his lap. When he objected and prevented her from doing so, Paramjit Singh threatened him with life and Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih stated that she would administer poison to him through food. On 17.1.1994, when he came to the house after duty, he found Paramjit Singh at his house and Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih sitting in his lap. When he objected and prevented her from doing so, Paramjit Singh threatened him with life and Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih stated that she would administer poison to him through food. Due to this threat, he sensed danger to his life as a result of which he left his house to stay with his uncle Bezamin Masih and is residing with him. Father of Paramjit Singh threatened him with life, therefore, he reported the matter at Police Station Morwa but on tendering apology by Bahadur Singh, father of Paramjit Singh, and settlement by neighbours, the report was taken back. He also reported about the threatenings and other activities of Paramjit Singh and Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih to the Police but' no action was taken thereon by it. Dispute that arose because of illicit relations between Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih and Paramjit Singh was taken to the Panchayat where statements of both the parties were recorded and Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih accepted her illicit relationship with Paramjit Singh, her moving with him but despite advice by Panchayat, she did not change her behaviour and continued her illicit relationship with Paramjit Singh resulting in ill effect on the children. Due to his, he was mentally upset and started feeling unwell. On account of illicit relationship of Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih with Paramjit Singh, he was unable to' keep her as his wife. On account of the illicit relationship, his reputation has been tarnished and serious injury is caused to him. He is a Dozer Operator earning Rs. 5000.00 per month. Paramjit Singh is liable to pay Rs. 50.000.00 by way of damages to him. Due to the activities of Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih, he gave notice through his Advocate on 8.2.1994 but it had no effect on the defendants/respondents. Instead, they started moving together more freely and continued their illicit relationship. Because of this he is passing through extreme mental strain. He, therefore, prayed that his marriage with Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih, which took place on 11.11.1978 according to the customs of Christian religion, be dissolved and cost of litigation and damages awarded. 2. Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih and Paramjit Singh have filed separate written statements. Because of this he is passing through extreme mental strain. He, therefore, prayed that his marriage with Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih, which took place on 11.11.1978 according to the customs of Christian religion, be dissolved and cost of litigation and damages awarded. 2. Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih and Paramjit Singh have filed separate written statements. Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih has denied allegations being false, conspiratory and defamatory. She states that Sunil Masih is a suspicious and characterless person. He levied baseless accusations against her. He had been subjecting her to various physical and mental cruelties. At one time, he attempted to bum her by pouring kerosene oil but on her cries, family members of Paramjit Singh saved the situation. As a result, Sunil Masih started nursing ill will against the" family members of Paramjit Singh. Her daughter Bamadiz Masih is studying in Lorato Convent School at Kolkata, residing in the hostel. She went to Kolkata to meet her on 14.12.1993. Her mother also lives in Kolkata. Sunil Masih himself went to Renukot Station to see her off, therefore, the allegation that she went to Kolkata with Paramjit Singh was wrong and totally false. She is 35 year old woman with three children, eldest daughter being of 16 year old, whereas Paramjit Singh is 20-22 year old living with his brothers, sister and parents and studying in college. Existence of illicit relations with him cannot be imagined, therefore, allegations are false and frivolous. Sunil Masih has developed illicit relations with Orfa Masih, adopted daughter of his uncle Benzamin Masih. He wants to marry orfa Masih which is not possible till he divorces her. With a view to secure divorce; Sunil Masih has levelled false and frivolous allegations against her, therefore, the same are liable to be rejected and she be awarded litigation expenses and monthly mintenance allowance of Rs. 2000.00. 3. Paramjit Singh has also denied the allegations against him, though it is admitted by him that his father Bahadur Singh is posted in the Project and lives in the quarter opposite to that of Sunil Masih and Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih. It is admitted that his family developed relationship with the family of Sunil Masih and started visiting each other as neighbours. Sunil Masih is a person of suspicious nature, full of vices, ill treating his wife and the children resulting in serious tension in the family. It is admitted that his family developed relationship with the family of Sunil Masih and started visiting each other as neighbours. Sunil Masih is a person of suspicious nature, full of vices, ill treating his wife and the children resulting in serious tension in the family. He states that Sunil Masih gave beatings to his wife and attempted to bum her by pouring kerosene oil but due to intervention by his family members, situation was saved. His parents chastised him and asked not to repeat such acts in future, otherwise they would report to high officials of the company. He did not change his behaviour, felt annoyed with his father to the extent that they ceased to be on talking terms. Shri Sunil Masih stopped residing in his quarter from January 1994 and lived with his uncle Benzamin Masih. He stopped looking after his wife and children due to which they faced financial difficulties and hardships. Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih started falling ill and in absence of provision for medical treatment, his family took her to hospital. He is her neighbour, therefore, would help her in times of difficulties. Sunil Masih did not like this and felt annoyed with his family and threatened to destroy his future, therefore, he has raised false allegations against him. She is 35 year old woman with three children, eldest daughter being 16 year old. So the allegations against him can not be thought of. It is with ulterior motive to create evidence for seeking divorce in connivance with the police. The allegations are baseless and unfortunate. Therefore, the case be rejected and cost of Rs. 10,000.00 awarded in his favour. 4. On the pleadings of parties, the District Judge framed the following issues, which when translated into English, read as under: (i) Whether Smt. Dezi Masih was carrying on illicit relationship with Paramjit Singh? (ii) Whether on account of illicit relationship of Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih with Paramjit Singh, social reputation of Sunil Masih has been tarnished, if so, whether Sunil Masih is entitled to receive damages from Paramjit Singh? If so, to what extent? (iii) Whether Sunil Masih has instituted false and baseless case against Paramjit Singh, if so, whether Paramjit Singh is entitled to total expenditure (compensatory cost) from Sunil Masih ? If so, to what extent? If so, to what extent? (iii) Whether Sunil Masih has instituted false and baseless case against Paramjit Singh, if so, whether Paramjit Singh is entitled to total expenditure (compensatory cost) from Sunil Masih ? If so, to what extent? (iv) Whether Sunil Masih has filed the case against Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih on false, frivolous and imaginary allegations with a view to marry Orfa Masih ? (v) Relief and cost? 5. The District Judge decided Issue Nos. (i) and (ii) in favour of Sunil Masih and against Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih and Paramjit Singh. Against issue No. (ii), damages in the sum of Rs. 50,00,000.00 have been awarded against Paramjit Singh. Issue Nos. (iii) and (iv) have been decided against Paramjit Singh and Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih Thus, decree for divorce by dissolution of marriage, subject to confirmation by this Court, has been passed. 6. With a view to record aforesaid conclusions, the trial Court places reliance on the evidence in the case. Sunil Masih states that his wife developed illicit relations with his neighbour Paramjit Singh from 1993. When he came from the market, he saw from the window of his house that his wife and Paramjit Singh were in compromising position. He thrashed, chastised and prevented his wife from doing so but she started quarrelling. He told her to leave such activities since they affect the children but she continued maintaining her illicit relation with Paramjit Singh. She was not his wife nor would she accept his advice and allow him touch her body. She went to Calcutta with Paramjit Singh without his permission and returned after 8 days stay. In Morwa, she used to roam about with Paramjit Singh; went with him to pay obeisance in Gurdwara on the occasion of Gurunanak Jayanti but did not participate in Christmas in the year 1993. She refused to go to the Church Since 1993, she did not allow him to have physical relationship with her. Hl called Panchayat on 18.1.1994 for settlement. Father, Convent Church, Father ECI Church, his uncle, his mother-in-law and persons of the society were present. There, Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih accepted her illicit relations with Paramjit Singh and promised not to continue the same, but at the same time, said that she would not stop meeting him nor prevent him to meet her. Father, Convent Church, Father ECI Church, his uncle, his mother-in-law and persons of the society were present. There, Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih accepted her illicit relations with Paramjit Singh and promised not to continue the same, but at the same time, said that she would not stop meeting him nor prevent him to meet her. After this Panchayat, she did not improve and continued her illicit relations with Paramjit Singh and threatened to bum herself. He also complained about this fact to the father of Paramjit Singh who threatened to kill him. This was reported at the Police Station Morwa but the Police did not take any action as his father Bahadur Singh settled the matter. . 7. Panchnama (Exh. 2) records the proceedings of Panchayat and participation by persons referred to above. Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih accepts her signature on this document and mentions that she accepted her mistake and promised to live with her husband forgetting the past. This document supports the claim of Sunil Masih which is further strengthened by document (Exh. A3) dated 18.1.1994 mentioning that Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih admitted her illicit relations with Paramjit Singh on being questioned by the Panchas. This document has clearly demonstrated about the relationship of Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih and Paramjit Singh apart from pointing out that she had been moving in his company to some places. It is also clear that Paramjit Singh had gone to Kolkata, stayed there for 8 days for which arrangements were made by the mother of Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih. She does not state about the reason for her moving with Paramjit Singh. Further, the Panchas found that husband and wife were no longer trusting each other. There was tension between the two therefore, they should live separately for at least six months. The District Judge refers to docments (Exh. P4 and Exh. P5) and concludes that Sunil Masih had reported about the illicit relationship between his wife Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih and Paramjit Singh at Police Station Morwa, and also about the threatenings extended to him. These two reports are dated 27.12.1993 and 4.2.1994. On 18.1.l994, Sunil Masih gave written statement before Panchayat (Exh. P6) which records illicit relations between Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih and Paramjit Singh and their threats. He expressed his desire to seek divorce. Before Panchas, Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih also gave her written statement (Exh. These two reports are dated 27.12.1993 and 4.2.1994. On 18.1.l994, Sunil Masih gave written statement before Panchayat (Exh. P6) which records illicit relations between Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih and Paramjit Singh and their threats. He expressed his desire to seek divorce. Before Panchas, Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih also gave her written statement (Exh. P7) from which it is clear that she and Paramjit Singh broke open the box of Sunil Masih and took away amount of Rs. 2500.00 and ornaments which were kept in the house of Bahadur Singh, father of Paramjit Singh. These ornaments are two gold kangan, four gold bangles, one gold chain with locket, a pair of ear ornaments, gold ring and one pair of silver anklet (Payal) which demonstrates intimate relationship between Smt. Elizabeth Masih and Paramjit Singh and these relations continued to exist. In support, Sunil Masih has produced Abdul Gafoor (PW 2). This witness admits his signature on document Exh. P3. 8. As against the version of Sunil Masih, Smt. Elizabeth Masih states that Sunil Masih had illicit relationship with Orfa Masih and he wants to marry her, therefore, false allegations have been made by him against her. Paramjit Singh states that since he had helped Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih during illness and took her to the hospital as a good neighbour, Sunil Masih has made allegations of illicit relation between him and Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih since he is a person of suspicious. nature. He had gone to Asansol on 16.1.1994. but Sunil Masih stated that he had gone to Kolkata. 9. In the aforesaid background, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih and Paramjit Singh established illicit relations in 1993 and continued the same. Nowhere in his statement, Paramjit Singh called her 'Didi' or 'Aunti' or 'Bhabhi' or by any other relationship. As against this, Sunil Masih clearly stated that Drfa Masih was his sister, daughter of his uncle. Consequently, EX.D1/A could not establish illicit relations between Sunil Masih and Drfa Masih. A brother can have a joint photograph with his sister since it is not unnatural. Besides, the photograph is not accompanied by negative, therefore, such photo group can be prepared by trick photography. Statement of Sunil Masih is that he came from market and saw from window that his wife and Paramjit Singh were in compromising position in the bed. A brother can have a joint photograph with his sister since it is not unnatural. Besides, the photograph is not accompanied by negative, therefore, such photo group can be prepared by trick photography. Statement of Sunil Masih is that he came from market and saw from window that his wife and Paramjit Singh were in compromising position in the bed. In the same way, Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih has not stated that Sunil Masih and Orfa Masih were seen in such state some time. Consequently, her allegations appear to be imaginery, made for purpose of defending herself from the allegations made by Sunil Masih against her. 10. Trial Court takes the view that with this mental state, the husband or wife would go to their relations. Therefore, Sunil Masih started residing with his uncle Benzamin Masih which was a normal human behaviour resulting from tension that existed between the husband and wife but it could not be concluded from this that Sunil Masih left his house to stay with his uncle since, he was interested to marry Orfa Masih. Sunil Masih has stated that Orfa Masih was the daughter of his maternal uncle. She had been adopted by his uncle Benzamin Masih. Existence of illicit relations between Smt. Daisy Masih and Paramjit Singh were shown to Abdul Gafoor (PW 2) who happens to be neighbour of Sunil Masih. After this incident, Abdul Gafoor (PW 2) also believed that Smt. Daisy Masih and Paramjit Singh were having illicit relations with each other. Whenever he would leave his residence, Paramjit would come to Smt. Daisy Masih. Abdul Gafoor (PW 2) saw Smt. Daisy Masih and Paramjit Singh moving together and cracking jokes with each other in the market. She was seen going to Gurdwara with Paramjit Singh for paying obeisance. 11. With regard to the contention that there was material age difference between Smt. Daisy Masih and Paramjit Singh, trial Court has concluded that for establishing illicit relationship, this kind of age difference is not an obstacle and they can exist irrespective of age, religion and caste. Smt. Daisy Masih established illicit relations with Paramjit Singh despite being mother of three children and belonging to Christian religion against Sikh religion of Paralnjit Singh. Smt. Daisy Masih established illicit relations with Paramjit Singh despite being mother of three children and belonging to Christian religion against Sikh religion of Paralnjit Singh. They were seen sleeping together on same bed, moving together in the market cracking jokes, by Sunil Masih as well as Abdul Gafoor (PW 2) whose house was ten meter away from that of Sunil Masih. 12. With the existence of illicit relations between Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih and' Paramjit Singh, the reputation of Sunil Masih is bound to be affected. It causes immense mental pressure on him which can not be measured intemis of money. This kind of relationship existed since 1993. She does not allow Sunil Masih to touch her body and on the other hand, sleeps with, moves with and talks with Paramjit Singh. This behaviour deprives Sunil Masih from marital relationship with his wife, plays down his status to infinity causing serious mental depression pondering over the state and conduct of his wife and the interference by Paramjit Singh in his family life and also depriving Sunil Masih of other valuables. In these circumstances, awarding Rs. 50,000.00 by way of damages to Sunil Masih can not be held unjustified. Paramjit Singh failed to justify his allegations against Sunil Masih. His defences have no substance. His behaviour demonstrates plainly that he had illicit relations with Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih since 1993. With a view to oppose this, he along with Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih have tried to put up the allegation of illicit relation between Sunil Masih and Orfa Masih by production of photograph which hardly proves the allegation. 13. Divorce is a civil proceeding, therefore, can not be compared with criminal proceedings. In the former, petitioner is required to prove his case by preponderance of probabilities, degree of which depends on the nature and gravity of the allegation, while requirement in criminal proceedings is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Direct proof of adultery is not available, therefore, cannot be given. The accepted rule is that circumstantial evidence given in the case must lead to the conclusion that the allegations of adultery are sustainable. Direct proof of adultery is not available, therefore, cannot be given. The accepted rule is that circumstantial evidence given in the case must lead to the conclusion that the allegations of adultery are sustainable. Conduct of parties with each other, conduct of either of them with party against whom allegation of adultery is set up, illicit affection, questionable familiarity, chance to assemble at place away from attention to avoid detection can be one of the many instances which create the impression of living in adultery which means' the voluntary sexual intercourse by one spouse with some person of opposite sex other than his or her spouse during the subsistence of the marriage. The nature of act is such that the offending parties endeavour to conceal themselves from detection. The onus to prove this charge is upon the person making it. He has to satisfy the Court by adducing proper and sufficient evidence of commission of adultery by the other spouse. Since direct evidence is normally not available, circumstantial and presumptive evidence assume importance which should convince the Court that adultery is committed by the spouse in question. In AIR 1975 SC 1534 (Dr. NG. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, the Apex Court said in paragraph 25 that: "25. proof beyond reasonable doubt is proof by a higher standard which generally governs criminal trials or trials involving inquiry into issues of a quasi-criminal nature. A criminal trial involves the liberty of the subject which may not be taken away-on a mere preponderance of probabilities. If the probabilities are so nicely balanced that a reasonable, not a vacilating, mind can not find where the preponderance lies, a doubt arises regarding the existence" of the fact to be proved and the benefit of such reasonable doubt goes to the accused. It is wrong to import such considerations in trials of a purely civil natures." In AIR 1975 M.P. 70 -- Full Bench (Lalrt Lazarus, Chhindwara v. Smt. Lavina Lazarus, Indore and another), this Court said in paragraph 6 that: "6. The next question to be considered is whether the petitioner has proved that the respondent No.1 is guilty of adultery. It is wrong to import such considerations in trials of a purely civil natures." In AIR 1975 M.P. 70 -- Full Bench (Lalrt Lazarus, Chhindwara v. Smt. Lavina Lazarus, Indore and another), this Court said in paragraph 6 that: "6. The next question to be considered is whether the petitioner has proved that the respondent No.1 is guilty of adultery. Previously the view was that the matrimonial offences have to, be proved by petitioner beyond reasonable doubt but recently the view has been modified and it has been held that petitioner is only required to prove his case by preponderance of probabilities and the degree of probability depends on the gravity of the offence. Rayden on divorce in Volume 1 at page 193 has observed "But a suit for divorce is a civil and not a criminal proceeding and the analogies and precedents of criminal law have no authority in the Courts administering divorces: they are civil tribunals. It is wrong. therefore to apply an analogy of criminal law and to say that adultery must be proved with the same strictness as is required in a criminal case. As far as the standard of proof is concerned, adultery, like any other fact on which irretrievable breakdown of marriage is concerned, may be proved by a preponderance of probability, and although It has been said that in proportion as the offence is grave, so ought the proof to be clear and that even in these days there is a stigma in adultery nevertheless. views on adultery have changed and it no longer generally entails the serious social consequences that in some former times resulted from its discovery" Halsbury in para 562 has further observed that adultery must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court, that is on a preponderance of probability but the degree of probability depends on the subject matter, and, in proportion as the offence is grave, so ought the proof to be clear. Divorce is a civil proceeding and the analogies of criminal law are not apt a pity. It seems that the Supreme Court also veered round to this view in the recent case of Dastane N. G. v. S Dastane AIR 1975 SC 1534 and it has been held while considering a case under Hindu Marriage Act that the proceeding under the Act being essentially of a civil nature, the word 'satisfied' means satisfied. It seems that the Supreme Court also veered round to this view in the recent case of Dastane N. G. v. S Dastane AIR 1975 SC 1534 and it has been held while considering a case under Hindu Marriage Act that the proceeding under the Act being essentially of a civil nature, the word 'satisfied' means satisfied. On preponderance of probability and not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt." In AIR 1964 Cal. 28 (Full Bench) Mrs. Agnes Cecillia Gome v. Lancelot Ashley Gome. it is observed as under: "It is not necessary that there should be direct evidence of adultery: as it is not easily available, rather direct proof is very nature. It has been pointed out in a number of cases that rarely the parties are surprised in a direct Act of adultery.....But circumstantial evidence must be sufficiently strong and conclusive. Association coupled with opportunity, illicit affection, undue familiarity, guilty attachment are some of the instances which create an inference upon which the Court can there is an old legal maxim in Scotland which runs as follows: 'solus cum sola in suspecto loco presumir dicere pater noster', which being translated means that when a man and a woman are found together under suspicious circumstances, it can not be presumed that they are saying their prayers. It would also be difficult to ascribe the theory of 'platonic love in such circumstances but then again the circumstances must be such as would lead 'the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just man to the conclusion' or 'fair reference as a necessary conclusion'. " In 1987 JLJ 39 = AIR 1986 M.P. 245 (Daniel John v. Rajmaya -- Special Bench), this Court said in paragraph 11 that: "11. In Earnest John White v. Mrs. Kathleen Olive while (Nee Naeade), AIR 1958 SC 441 it was observed that terms of section 14 make it plain that when the Court is to be satisfied on the evidence in respect of matrimonial offences, the guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and it is on that principle that the Courts in India would Act and the reason for adopting this standard of proof is the grave consequence, which follows a finding of guilt in matrimonial causes. In a suit based on matrimonial offence, it is not necessary and it is indeed rarely possible to prove the issue by any direct evidence, for in very few cases can such proof be obtainable. In another case Samuel v. Roshni. AIR 1960 Madh Pra. 142, It was observed: "In India, it is not usual for a young man and woman to live together is a house when they are neither related nor married to each other. Society being very much more conservative here than elsewhere, adultery from the facts (1) that only the respondent and the co-respondent stayed in one house together for a long time: (2) that the respondent had refused to go back to her husband: (3) that the respondent and co-respondent had not the courage to come into the witness box to deny the charge of adultery, and (4) that they had ample opportunity to commit adultery by being alone in the house, and their stay together can not be accounted for on any other reasonable innocent hypothesis'- " In 1981 JLJ In = AIR 1981 M.P. 112 (Special Bench) -- Pulikkottial Chem v Mary Zechariah. this Court in paragraph 4 said that: "4. Meaning of 'adultery' as a ground for relief in matrimonial cases is well known. It means voluntary sexual intercourse by one spouse with some person of opposite sex other than his or her spouse during the subsistence of the marriage. Adultery. therefore can rarely be proved by direct evidence which is looked upon only with disfavour and one has to infer adultery from attending circumstances the inclination of the spouse and the opportunities available In its very nature, therefore such evidence must be clear cogent and convincing and should admit only of one inference before it can be accepted to infer adultery Certainly. therefore, the onus to prove this charge of adultery is upon the person making it and it is for him to satisfy the Court by adducing proper and sufficient evidence that adultery has been committed by the other spouse As circumstantial and presumptive evidence assumes importance in the case of adultery and direct evidence is normally not probable, uncorroborated evidence supported by such circumstantial evidence may be enough. Falsity of defence may be no substitute. Falsity of defence may be no substitute. Although this charge of adultery assumes a criminal character and demands of a rather strict proof, yet the standard of proof required is not the same as is required to prove a criminal charge. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is now not necessary and preponderance of probabilities may decide the issue. This is now the law which prevails in England after the decision in Blyth v. Blyth (1966) 1 All ER, 524. Since according to section 7 of the Indian Divorce Act, the Court should, as nearly as may be, act and give reliefs in proceedings under the Act in conformity with the principles and rules on which the Court in divorce and matrimonial causes in England for the time being acts and gives reliefs, the rule of evidence in Blyth's case (supra) must be followed. After referring to the relevant provisions of law and the decisions in Earnest John while v. Mrs. Kathleen Olive white (AJR 1958 SC 441) and Preston-Jones v. Preston-Jones (1951) AC 391, G.P. Singh, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Full Bench in Prem Masih v. Mst. Kumudani Bai (AIR 1974 Madh Pra. 88: 1974 MPLJ 188 ), stated the law in these words: 'The case of Blyth v. Blyth. (1966) 1 All ER 524 will therefore, show that the view expressed in Preston Jones case, (1951 AC 391) that the standard of proof in case of a matrimonial offence in a petition for divorce is proof beyond rasonable doubt. does not now hold the field and that the correct test in that matter is that expressed by Dixon, J. in (1948) 77 CLR 191. In view of the mandate in Section 7 of the Act that the principles and rules on which the Court of divorce and matrimonial causes in England for the time being acts and gives relief should be applied by the Indian Courts, we feel that now the standard of proof recommended in (1966) 1 All ER 524 (supra) will have to be applied by the Indian Courts also. But the change in principle as to the standard of proof will most often not make any difference in the result, for even applying the civil standard of proof to a divorce proceeding based on adultery a high standard of proof will be needed to satisfy the Court that adultery has been committed.' We are in respectful agreement with the view so expressed." 14. Adverting to the facts of this case, evidence clearly suggests that Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih developed illicit relations with Paramjit Singh in 1993. One day, Sunil Masih and Abdul Gafoor (PW 2) saw them through window of •the house when they came from the market, in the compromising position sleeping on the same bed. Although he thrashed and chastised her from doing so, she did not stop her illicit relations with Paramjit Singh. She would move with him in the market, go to Gurudwar to pay obeisance and not to Church particularly on a Christmas Day. She went to Calcutta with Paramjit Singh and returned after 8 days. She stopped physical relations with Sunil Masih. Panchayat was called. She admitted her illicit relations with Pararnjit Singh before it. Although she promised to discontinue this kind of relationship with Pararnjit Singh but she did not improve. Sunil Masih complained to Balbir Singh, the father of Paramjit Singh, and reported the matter to the Police. But this too had no affect. Panchnama (Exh. P2) and document (Exh. P3) are documents which substantiate her illicit relations with Paramjit Singh. Sunil Masih fed up with the conduct of his wife and unable to bear the strain, left the house and started living with his uncle Benzamin Masih. On the other hand, Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih and Paramjit Singh colluded with each other and put up almost similar defence against Sunil Masih. First they alleged that Sunil Masih had illicit relations with Orfa Masih, daughter of his uncle and with a view to marry her, this type of petition with allegations has been filed so that he could succeed in marrying Orfa Masih. Thereafter, they also alleged that Sunil Masih has married another woman namely Meera Rai on 15.5 .1995 giving birth to a child. 15. The allegations could not be substantiated before the District Judge and unique method is devised by filing affidavits in the Court. Thereafter, they also alleged that Sunil Masih has married another woman namely Meera Rai on 15.5 .1995 giving birth to a child. 15. The allegations could not be substantiated before the District Judge and unique method is devised by filing affidavits in the Court. This mode of proof is neither legally permissible nor can be considered in absence of proper justification. It is well settled that unless statute permits evidence by affidavits, they cannot be accepted nor reliance placed on facts stated therein. By this method, the other side is seriously prejudiced. They could move the Court for production of additional evidence with justification permitted by law. But this has not been done. Therefore, the respondents have miserably failed to justify the allegations against Sunil Masih. Conclusion is irresistible that all the allegations placed by Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih and Paramjit Singh against Sunil Masih are thoroughly baseless and concocted raised with an object to save themselves from the allegations of adultery. There is over-whelming evidence on the record and as discussed by the District Judge, to demonstrate that Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih is living in adultery with Paramjit Singh. The District Judge has dealt with all material aspects of the case and conclusions have been drawn after proper appreciation of the evidence in the case. Defences taken by Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih and Paramjit Singh have been rightly rejected after careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence furnished by the parties. 16. Now we take up the question of award of damages to Shri Sunil Masih. The District Judge has directed that Sunil Masih will be entitled to receive from Paramjit Singh a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 as damages. Section 34 of the Act of 1869 reads thus: "34. Husband may claim damages from adulterer Any husband may, either in a petition for dissolution of marriage or for judicial separation, or in a petition to the District Court or the High Court limited to such object only, claim damages from any person on the ground of his having committed adultery with the wife of such petitioner. Such petition shall be served on the alleged adulterer and the wife, unless the Court dispenses with such service, or directs some other service to be substituted. Such petition shall be served on the alleged adulterer and the wife, unless the Court dispenses with such service, or directs some other service to be substituted. The damages to be recovered on any such petition shall be ascertained by the said Court, although the respondents or either of them may not appear. After the decision has been given, the Court may direct in what manner such damages shall be paid or applied." This section envisages award of damages to the husband for the injury he suffered as a result of the Act of the adulterer (AIR 1931 Audh page 259 George Arthur Canning Hearsay v. A.M Hearsay). Evidence clearly demonstrates involvement of Paramjit Singh with the wife of Sunil Masih. He was caught red handed; he was arrested and rebuked number of times, still he did not part ways with the wife of Sunil Masih. He not only continued the illicit relationship with the wife of Sunil Masih but colluded with her by raising defenses which are completely imaginery, unsatisfactory and unsustainable. Award of damages by the District Judge is therefore justified. We examined this question though Paramjit Singh has not filed appeal against the order directing him to pay damages to Sunil Masih on the ground of his having committed adultery with the wife of Sunil Masih. He has no right to challenge the order of confirmation proceedings under section 17 of the Act since aggrieved adulterer has right to prefer an appeal against such order for payment of damages under section 55 of the Act of 1869. The claim for damages is an independent cause of action and can be enforced without praying for dissolution of marriage as is clear from section 34 of the Act of 1869 (AIR 1992 Kerala 412 - Robert Sebastian v. Linet Suba, AIR 1950 All. 193 -Barrett v. Barrett, AIR 1929 Cal. 599 -Linton v. Guderian, AIR 1937-Lah. 417 FB - Peyton v. Peyton and/1869/20 ILR Born. 262 FB - Kyte v. Kyte). No other point was raised. 17. There is no collusion between the husband and wife nor there is acquiescence or condonation. The District Judge has rightly passed the impugned decree for dissolution of marriage prayed for by Shri Sunil Masih. It is made absolute. Cost on parties.