Judgment ( 1. ) THE appellant has filed the appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 9. 8. 1997 passed by learned District Judge, Dhar in Civil Suit No. 21-A/1995, wherein the decree of divorce is granted on the ground of adultery. ( 2. ) THE admitted facts of the case are that the marriage in between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs in the year 1982 and they lived at Dhar. It is also the common ground that they arc having three daughters and one son from the wedlock. ( 3. ) THE case of the petitioner is that after about 8 years of marriage, the character of the defendant had become doubtful. That she is indulging in illicit sexual intercourse with Manoj son of Mannulal Khatri who is living in the next door. That on 11. 6. 1995 at about 9. 15 a. m. when the petitioner reached to his house, he saw his wife lying naked and in a compromise position with Manoj Khatri. That he broke up the door and reprimanded Manoj and thereafter lodged the report in the police. That on account of the illicit relation of his wife, the petitioner is loosing the reputation in the town and as such the decree of divorce be passed on the ground of adultery. ( 4. ) THE defendant has denied the allegation of having sexual intercourse with Manoj Khatri. She has also denied that she is living in lechers life. It is pleaded by the defendant that the petitioner is a greedy man and treats her and he has made false and baseless allegation in order to fetch the dowry. ( 5. ) THE learned Trial Court after framing the issues has examined petitioner Gangaram (P. W.-1), Sugnabai (P. W.-2) and from the opposite side Rekhabai (D. W.-1) and Tulsabai (D. W.-2) and the learned Trial Court has passed the decree of divorce holding that the appellant is guilty of having voluntary sexual intercourse with the other person. ( 6. ) GANGARAM (P. W.-1) has stated that he got married with the defendant on 6th May, 1982 and there were four children from the wedlock. On 11. 6. 1995 when he came to his house at about 9. 00/9. ( 6. ) GANGARAM (P. W.-1) has stated that he got married with the defendant on 6th May, 1982 and there were four children from the wedlock. On 11. 6. 1995 when he came to his house at about 9. 00/9. 30 a. m. he saw one Manoj was committing sexual intercourse with his wife and when he objected, Manoj assaulted him and ran away. Petitioner Gangaram (P. W.-1) has further stated that he has lodged the report in the police and his statement was recorded before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner has not produced the police report lodged by him against Manoj. In the statement recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate the story regarding the incident is totally different and contradictory. In Ex. P/3 it is stated that one Mahesh took his wife to Pawagarh and they lived together for 6 to 7 days. It is not disclosed by the petitioner in the statement Ex. P/3 that said Manoj was seen by him committing sexual intercourse with his wife in his house. No explanation is given that why the vital allegation regarding sexual intercourse with his wife by Manoj were not disclosed in his statement (Ex. P/3) by the petitioner given to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The case of the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was that his wife was having illicit relation with Mahesh while it is alleged by him in the petition of divorce that the relation with his wife with Manoj. ( 7. ) IT is admitted by the petitioner that they lived together happily after marriage for about 8 to 10 years and they were having four children from the wedlock. The petitioner has not examined any neighbour of his house to show that his wife was of bad character or had illicit relation with Manoj. The non-examination of the witnesses of locality is a serious lacuna and no explanation is given that why the witnesses of the locality were not examined. In the case of divorce on the ground of adultery, the adultery should be proved by the petitioner with clinching and reliable evidence. ( 8. ) DEFENDANT Rekhabai (D. W.-1) has stated that her husband used to consume liquor and was in habit of physical assaulting her. Tulsabai (D. W.-2) has corroborated the statement of Rekhabai (D. W.-1 ). Rekhabai (D. W.-1) has denied that she was having any relation with said Manoj. ( 8. ) DEFENDANT Rekhabai (D. W.-1) has stated that her husband used to consume liquor and was in habit of physical assaulting her. Tulsabai (D. W.-2) has corroborated the statement of Rekhabai (D. W.-1 ). Rekhabai (D. W.-1) has denied that she was having any relation with said Manoj. This is the case of oath against oath and from the statement of petitioner it is clear that the charge of adultery against the defendant by the petitioner is not proved. The learned Trial Court has erred in passing the decree of divorce against the appellant defendant. ( 9. ) THE appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment and decree is hereby set aside. The petition filed by the respondent/petitioner is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs of the appeal.