Can’t presume working women lead adulterous life, cogent proof must for divorce: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently said that a presumption against working women that they may be leading an adulterous life outside home would tarnish the image of the entire female community..The Division Bench of Justices Sudhir Singh and Harsh Bunger made the observation while hearing an appeal against the divorce granted to a lawyer by the Family Court on the ground of his wife's alleged cruelty and adultery. The High Court said the trial judge had wrongly made a presumption regarding relations between the man’s wife and a former judicial officer with whom she had worked in the past. “One cannot lose sight of the fact that in the present modern day times, women are engaged in every field and they are not only working in offices but also doing business independently and they are well placed in many offices, institutions, companies etc., in this era. Merely because women are moving out of the home for work or business purpose(s) and even travelling with their male colleagues or senior officials in relation to their work/business, that itself cannot be a determinative factor to presume that all such women have developed intimacy with such persons and leading an adulterous life,” the Bench observed..It added that mere allegations or inferences are not at all sufficient to prove adulterous life. “Since the allegations affect the reputation of the wife, such allegations have to be proved and should be conclusive in nature. Mere inferences are not sufficient to prove such allegations,” the Court said..The couple in the present case had married in February 2014. However, due to marital discord, they soon started living separately and subsequently, the husband sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty, adultery and desertion. On alleged cruelty, he claimed that she had persistently refused to have sexual relations with him, failed to take care of his physically handicapped mother, stole a t-shirt from a mall and caused loss to his reputation by telling his friends and colleagues that he was impotent. It was also alleged that she had tried to convince his clients to withdraw their cases from him. In particular, the husband also alleged that she was in an adulterous relationship with a former judge, who was terminated on the grounds of corruption.However, the wife denied the allegations and said his husband and his mother were expecting huge amounts of money at the time of marriage. She alleged she was abused and physically tortured by him. With regard to the theft of the t-shirt, she said it was the husband who had put it in her bag when she was trying on clothes. .The trial court in 2021 held that the husband had been successful in proving his case and that the wife had treated him with cruelty and was leading an adulterous life. The wife moved the High Court against the findings and grant of divorce.During the hearing of the appeal, the High Court urged the couple arrive at an amicable settlement but its efforts did not result in any positive results. The Court then considered the case on merits..At the outset, it observed that the allegations of adultery must be proved with relevant material before the court of law. Having looked at the evidence presented by the husband, the Court said he had failed to prove the alleged acts of adultery. “There is not even a scintilla of evidence on record to prove that they have any soft feelings or any intimate relations or they are enamored or have mutual passion for each other,” the Court said with regard to the alleged relationship between the woman and a judicial officer. .The trial court had earlier also considered the allegation that the wife was leading an “ultra modern” life and that while in Australia, she was living with another person in the same rented accommodation. The High Court found that the shared rented accommodation had been taken under compelling circumstances as there was a shortage of accommodation in Australia due to floods. It also observed that the same had happened prior to marriage. “Moreover, taking shared accommodation during the period when the persons are pursuing their studies or in early days of one’s career and that too in a foreign country, is not an unknown circumstance. It is a matter of common knowledge and quite normal as well that majority of students who come from not very affluent families, while pursuing their studies or in early phases of their careers, do take shared rented accommodations and not only in foreign countries, but in India as well,” the High Court added..However, the High Court agreed with the husband on his allegations of cruelty and found that she had made complaints against him and his mother with the intention that some police action would be taken against them.It rejected the wife’s stand that she had done so only to save her matrimonial life.The wife had also made complaints to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and allegedly created a scene at the premises of the bar body.“Such conduct amounts to a deliberate and egregious form of cruelty, reflecting a systematic effort to inflict psychological distress and undermine the husband's integrity,” the Court said..With regard to the stealing of a dress at a mall, the Court noted that the woman had failed to refer to any material to disprove the allegation.“Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellant (wife) has treated the respondent (husband) with cruelty,” the Court said.The Court concluded that the marriage between the couple was beyond repair and thus setting aside the divorce decree would amount to compelling them to further live together in complete disharmony, mental stress and strain, which would perpetuate the cruelty.“Resultantly, while reversing the findings on adultery, we uphold the impugned judgment and decree dissolving marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty and the instant appeal is accordingly, dismissed,” the Court ordered..Senior Advocate RS Bains and advocate Mohan Singh Chauhan represented the wife.Senior Advocate SK Garg Narwana with advocates Ravinder Singh Randhawa and Nitin Sachdeva represented the husband.