The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that a husband’s unexplained relationship with a woman outside the matrimonial bond amounts to cruelty to the wife..The Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur was dealing with a case in which the husband had sought divorce over the wife’s allegations of illicit relations against him. The Court noted that the husband had admitted his acquaintance with a woman and that he had travelled with her several times by air and train. “Though, the stand of the appellant-husband is that he had no illicit relations with said XXX, yet we find that 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,” it ruled..The Court passed the judgment on the husband’s own appeal seeking setting aside of Family Court’s 2023 decision to not grant him divorce.The Hindu couple married in 2011 and have a child. The husband alleged that the wife would treat him and his family with utmost cruelty. He argued that the allegations of illicit relations had caused a dent in their marriage.However, the wife said she had once seen her husband with a woman in the park and when she questioned him about it, he told that she was serving in his company and would solemnize marriage with that woman. .The Court noted that as per family court’s findings, there was a compact disc (CD) showing the husband coming out of a flat with a lady. It also noted that the husband registered a company in the name of that woman and himself.Rejecting the contention that the husband that there was no evidence against him, the Court said,“It has been admitted by the appellant (husband) that he had acquaintance with said XXX for a long time and that he had been travelling with her by air and train several times and he had even visited Goa with her. In our opinion, the admission of the appellant-husband regarding his relations with said XXX coupled with the position indicated in Ex.DA clearly shows that it was the appellant-husband, who had been the cause of disturbance in the matrimonial alliance of the parties.”.Thus, the Court ruled that the husband’s conduct does not entitle him to any relief and dismissed his appeal.“We are conscious of the fact that parties have been residing separately since 2018, but it must be borne in mind that the instant case is not a fit case, where any indulgence can be granted to the appellant-husband, due to long separation, in view of the acts and conduct of the appellant-husband,” it added.Advocate Balraj Gujjar represented the appellant-husband. Advocate RK Dhankar represented the respondent-wife.
