Pre-marital relationship alone can’t amount to adultery: HC

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has made it clear that the wife's previous relationship with her friend before marriage does not tantamount to an offence of adultery for the husband. The HC was also of the view that the incident of a wife meeting her friend alone on one occasion being a single incident cannot be said that she is living in adultery with him.A division bench comprising Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Ramesh Kumari passed these orders while upholding a family court ruling dissolving the marriage of a couple from Gurdaspur in Punjab on grounds of cruelty. The bench dismissed the appeal filed by the wife against the decree granted in favour of her husband, a soldier of the Indian Navy. She had challenged the judgment dated Feb 2, 2026, passed by the additional principal judge, family court, Gurdaspur, holding that the wife's conduct and allegations against her husband and in-laws amounted to mental cruelty.The couple in this case was married on Nov 16, 2021, and had no children from the wedlock. The husband alleged that the wife was quarrelsome, frequently stayed out late, neglected marital responsibilities, and refused to share a bed with him. He further claimed she remained in constant contact with another man, with whom she allegedly had a relationship prior to the marriage.The husband contended that on Jan 11, 2023, he discovered his wife at the residence of the said individual in what he described as a "compromising position," following which her family members took her back to her parental home.The wife denied the allegations and accused her husband and his family of demanding dowry. She also alleged that her father-in-law had "bad eyes" on her and that her husband failed to support her after she disclosed the alleged misconduct.However, the family court found several of the wife's claims to be inconsistent and unsupported by evidence. The trial court noted contradictions in her testimony, particularly regarding her allegation against her father-in-law. During cross-examination, she admitted that the same father-in-law used to drop her to college, a statement the court observed was inconsistent with her accusations.The court held that levelling "reckless, irresponsible and false allegations" against the character of an elderly father-in-law, without substantiating them during trial, constituted serious cruelty toward the husband.The family court also rejected the wife's dowry allegations, observing that she admitted during cross-examination that no motorcycle, allegedly claimed as dowry in her pleadings, had ever been given. The court concluded that the accusations appeared to be attempts to defame the husband and his family.In its observations, the HC agreed with the trial court's reasoning and held that while a single alleged meeting between the wife and another man could not establish adultery, the cumulative effect of false allegations and defamatory accusations justified dissolution of the marriage on grounds of cruelty."The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned family court does not call for any interference," the bench ruled while dismissing the appeal as "devoid of merits."