PATRICK DONALD STRACEY Vs. EILEEN STRACEY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE District Judge, Lower Assam Districts passed a decree nisi on 4th April 1955 dissolving the marriage of the Petitioner with the Respondent. The records have been submitted to this Court for the confirmation of this decree.

(2.) THE Petitioner Patric Donald Stracey sued Eileen Stracey, his wife, for the dissolution of their marriage, Harold Murray was made co -Respondent in the case. The crucial issue in the case was as follows: "Whether the Respondent committed acts of adultery with the co -Respondent on different occasions -between 20th July 1952 and 10th April 1953 as alleged by the Petitioner". In the course of the discussion of the evidence, His Lordships observed:) (3) In 'Woolf v. Woolf, 1931 PD 134 (A), it was held that:

(3.) THESE decisions may be regarded as settling the standard of proof needed in a case for dissolution of marriage. If adultery is alleged as the ground for dissolution its proof beyond reasonable doubt would be necessary. This proposition does not conflict with anything laid down in the decision in '1931 PD 134 (A)'. There it was laid down that evidence tendered in good faith should be accepted. The evidence when accepted was considered enough for an inference of adultery.