P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.
1. We agree with the learned Judge that even assuming that all the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant were true, there is only proof of adulterous conduct on the part of the wife but there is no evidence which can support the finding that she is the concubine of any other man. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that if a wife lived continuously in adultery with another man, then she would be his concubine. This would not be so unless she has left her husband's house and has been living with her paramour practically as with a husband. The, distinction is brought out very clearly, if we may say so with respect, in a recent decision of the Andhra High Court, in Subbaramiah v. Venkata Subbamma (1956) An. W.R. 428. We are of opiriion that the evidence in this case is not sufficient to enable the Court to give a rinding that the wife is a concubine of another man. As divorce was sought only on this ground the petition was rightly dismissed by Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.