GUWAHATI: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a husband's unexplained relationship with another woman outside the matrimonial bond amounts to cruelty towards his wife. The judgment was delivered by a division bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur.
ALSO READ: Trying To Grope Victim's Breast Does Not Count As Attempted Rape, Rules Calcutta HC
The court was hearing an appeal filed by a husband challenging the 2023 decision of a family court which had refused to grant him a divorce. The Hindu couple had married in 2011 and had a child. The husband alleged that the wife treated him and his family with cruelty, arguing that her accusations regarding his illicit relationship had caused a breakdown in their marriage, according to a BarandBench report published on Saturday, April 26.
However, the wife contended that she had once seen her husband with another woman in a park and was informed by him that he intended to marry that woman, who was employed in his company. The family court had earlier noted evidence, including a compact disc (CD), showing the husband exiting a flat with a woman and that the husband had registered a company jointly with her.
The high court further found that the husband had admitted to maintaining acquaintance with the woman, travelling with her several times by air and train, and even visiting Goa. The court observed that although the husband denied any illicit relationship, his unexplained association with the woman constituted cruelty towards the wife.
"Maintaining relations with a lady outside the matrimonial alliance that too without any justified explanation, certainly amounts to cruelty and rather, the said fact is sufficient to cause ruptures in the matrimonial alliance of the parties," the court ruled.
Rejecting the husband's appeal, the court stated that the evidence and admissions clearly indicated that he was responsible for the disturbance in the marriage. While acknowledging that the parties had been living separately since 2018, the court concluded that the husband was not entitled to any relief due to his conduct.
