Sita Devi vs Maharaja Kumar Gopal Saran Narayan ... on 16 April, 1928
It was really upon these facts that it was held that there could be only one inference, namely that of adultery between the plaintiff and Culliford. In the instant case, however, we have no such evidence of the appellant and Prakrit having stayed together for any length of time alone in one room . or of having been found in the bed room of the appellant with the door bolted from within. No inference of adultery can, therefore, be drawn in the present case as was done in Sita Devils case AIR 1928 Pat 375. In that case there was also an allegation of adultery against Sita Devi during her stay at Calcutta, in regard to which reliance was sought to be placed upon the evidence of one Mrs. Williams, who spoke about certain callers visiting the lady in her flat at Calcutta whom the witnesses described as Moslem dressed in English clothes. But Macpherson, considered that the evidence of Mrs. Williams was
not inconsistent with the innocence of the plaintiff in Calcutta of the highest marital offence" and that he
would not they any special stress on the visit of the 'Moslem dressed in English clothes' to a lady who had been accustomed Juring her married life to meet Indians of the better classes". No doubt, Kulwant Saliay, J., who was the other member of the Division Bench, was inclined to take the view that the evidence of Mrs. Williams "goes to establish the fact of adultery in Calcutta also", but his Lordship has not referred to any particular fact deposed to by Mrs. Williams and observed as follows: