JUDGMENT Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. Marriage is an Institution, responsibility to preserve the institution would lie upon the couple having equal responsibility to maintain it. The couple before us got married on October 14, 1989 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. They started living together maintaining the matrimonial relationship until the discord that culminated in a matrimonial litigation filed on March, 30, 2010 in the court of the Learned District Judge, Howrah being Matrimonial Suit No.276 of 2010. The husband alleged in the plaint, his wife, the respondent above named, committed adultery. According to the husband, on an unspecified day when he returned from his place of work at about 2-00 P.M. he found one of his colleagues, Kalyan Chakraborty, a police man present in his house. He saw his wife and Kalyan Chakraborty in a compromising position in their bed room. The husband would again say, he tried to pacify his wife so that she would discontinue “illicit link”. She was not convinced. She left the house on August, 16, 2008 deserting the husband. On these two allegations the husband filed the suit for divorce. From the available records we are not sure why the respondent did not contest the proceeding. The fact would remain, the husband got the suit heard ex parte. The Learned District Judge was, however, not convinced with the evidence that was led before him. The husband examined himself. He was consistent on his stand. He however improved his case by providing particulars of adultery by deposing, he saw them once in compromising position on June, 16, 2005. His wife deserted him on August, 16, 2008. He did not explain what had happened during interregnum. He also deposed, he came to know from his mother, his wife used to visit her paternal place in his absence. He also deposed, his wife took back her “Stridhan”. They had no issue out of the wedlock. The learned District Judge, Howrah in his judgement and order dated June, 27, 2010 observed, a solitary incident, as deposed, could not be a ground for divorce. The relevant extract is quoted below: “This is a case for divorce on the ground of adultery. Perused the examination in chief and also the examination on oath. The learned District Judge, Howrah in his judgement and order dated June, 27, 2010 observed, a solitary incident, as deposed, could not be a ground for divorce. The relevant extract is quoted below: “This is a case for divorce on the ground of adultery. Perused the examination in chief and also the examination on oath. It is very difficult to brand the wife as living in adultery with Kalyan Chakraborty relying on the oral evidence of her husband, P.W.-1 who has already animosity against her. He deposed that in the year 2005 he saw his wife Dipti Mondal and Kalyan Chakraborty shared in the same bed. If it is true it is very difficult to believe that the present petitioner lived with that lady up to 2009 without lodging any complaint to any authority. Thus the prayer for divorce on the ground of adultery is not convincing to me and the petition as such is fit to be rejected and I do that.” Hence, this appeal by the husband. Learned Counsel appearing for the husband/ appellant in support of the appeal contended, love was lost, the couple started living separately for last seven years. Wife deserted the husband. Wife did not contest the proceeding at all. Hence, the learned Judge erred in rejecting of the prayer for divorce. He would rely upon two decisions, Virupaxi vs. Sarojini and Anr. reported in All India Reporter 1991 Karnataka page-128 and Arun Kumar Bhardwaj vs. Smt. Anila Bhardwaj reported in All India Reporter 1993 Punjab and Haryana page-33. Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/ wife would contend, the husband examined himself. He mentioned about a solitary incident as referred to above. He also deposed, his mother was staying with them. The mother was not called to adduce evidence. Learned Counsel would also say, the learned District judge, Howrah did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the divorce suit. The marriage was consummated in Belgharia, the wife was staying at Belgharia. Hence, in fitness of things, the learned District Judge 24–Paraganas (North) should be the appropriate forum. He would rely upon the decision in the case of Mrs. Agnes Cecillia Gome (Gannon) versus Lancelot Ashby Gome reported in volume 67 Calcutta Weekly Notes page-740 and in the case of Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs. Radhey Shyam reported in All India Reporter 1972, Rajasthan, 260. He would rely upon the decision in the case of Mrs. Agnes Cecillia Gome (Gannon) versus Lancelot Ashby Gome reported in volume 67 Calcutta Weekly Notes page-740 and in the case of Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs. Radhey Shyam reported in All India Reporter 1972, Rajasthan, 260. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would also press for an appropriate alimony. We were told, the wife had been getting alimony at the rate of Rs.8000/- per month at present. Before we go into the discord, we must record, the effort we made once again to settle the discord. We called the couple, we tried to persuade them to have re-union. The husband, a police officer, would say, he would be killing himself, rather than accepting his wife once again. The wife was, however, agreeable to go back. Let us first discuss the law on the subject as held in the precedent. Three Judge Bench of our Court, while deciding the wife’s petition on the charge of adultery (Mrs. Agnes Cecillia Gome (Gannon) versus Lancelot Ashby Gome, (Supra) observed, “it is not necessary that there should be direct evidence of adultery; as it is not easily available, rather direct proof is very rare. 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.” In the case of Smt. Pushpa Devi (Supra), Learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court once again reiterated, it is not necessary to prove the fact of adultery by direct evidence and such evidence, if produced, would normally be suspect and likely to be discarded. Normally adultery is proved by circumstantial evidence. In the case of Virupaxi (Supra), the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held, even if there was adultery the condonation of such act would demolish the case of adultery. The Division Bench relied upon earlier decision of the Apex Court wherein Apex Court observed, “Condonation means forgiveness of the matrimonial offence and the restoration of offending spouse to the same position as he or she occupied before the offence was committed. To constitute condonation there must be, therefore, two things: forgiveness and restoration. The Division Bench relied upon earlier decision of the Apex Court wherein Apex Court observed, “Condonation means forgiveness of the matrimonial offence and the restoration of offending spouse to the same position as he or she occupied before the offence was committed. To constitute condonation there must be, therefore, two things: forgiveness and restoration. The evidence of condonation in this case, is as strong and satisfactory as the evidence of cruelty.” In the Case of Arun Kumar Bhardwaj (Supra) the learned Single Judge, Punjab and Haryana High Court also observed, condonation of offence by husband would demolish the case of adultery. We have considered rival contentions. The learned Counsel appearing for the husband in his fairness conceded, the charge of desertion would not be maintainable being less than two years period. Significant to note, the wife allegedly deserted the husband on August, 16, 2008 and the husband filed the suit on March, 30, 2010 being less than two years. Hence, the sole ground would remain, the charge of adultery. The husband in his petition asserted, he saw the respondent in compromising position with Kalyan Chakraborty once. While adducing evidence he deposed, the incident occurred on June 16, 2005 almost five years before filing of the suit. The husband’s definite assertion of the incident did not find corroboration. He did not make any attempt to produce any evidence to support his case, his mother was not examined. It would be rather unusual, his wife would be in compromising position while his mother being in the house. Even if we give credence to what he would say, his conduct would prevent to take such view. His prolonged silence for five years would suggest condonation of the alleged offence. The learned District Judge, Howrah very rightly denied the divorce that we do not find any scope to be interfered with. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There would be no order as to cost. The wife is getting alimony at the rate of Rs.8000/-per month. Let the husband continue to pay until he would accept his wife and start living together once again. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties. I agree.