Chandigarh, May 27 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court has said that a solitary meeting with another man cannot by itself tantamount to adultery. The court made these observations while deciding a matrimonial case from Punjab. The woman had appealed against the February 2026 judgment of a family court in Gurdaspur that allowed dissolution of the marriage between the parties. "Learned trial court in its rightful wisdom also observed that conduct of respondent-wife in meeting respondent No.2 (ex) alone on 11.01.2023 being a single incident cannot be said that she is living in adultery with respondent No.2 nor her previous relationship with respondent No.2 before marriage tantamount to an offence of adultery for the respondent-husband." the high court said, while upholding the family court order on grounds of cruelty. The marriage took place in November 2021. No child was born from the wedlock. The husband, serving in the Indian Navy, accused his wife of maintaining a relationship with another man even after marriage. He alleged that the wife was "quarrelsome and short-tempered", frequently returned home late, refused to share a bed with him and remained occupied on her mobile phone for long hours speaking to strangers. He had further alleged that she remained busy on her mobile phone for hours with strangers and when enquired he came to know that she is in relationship with a man much prior to their marriage. "She also apologised to her husband and promised not to make any call to respondent No.2 and also requested him not to disclose these facts to her family members. The allegations of the husband are that on 11.01.2023 the wife was found in the house of respondent No.2 and he immediately called her father and brother at the spot and found the appellant-wife in compromising position with respondent No.2 and thereafter she was taken by her father and brother to her paternal home," the HC order read recording rival contentions in the case. The wife denied the allegations. She had accused the husband and his family of dowry harassment. She further alleged that her father-in-law had "bad eyes" on her and that despite informing her husband about his conduct, he sided with his father instead. The family court had found "serious inconsistencies" in her version. "It is highly improbable to believe that the wife would commute with the same person i.e. her father-in-law, who is having bad eyes on her. Meaning thereby, her allegations that her father-in-law, who is admittedly old aged person, had bad eyes on her, are false," "Making such like reckless, irresponsible and false allegations on the character of father of petitioner and defaming him in the pleadings before the Court in present petition, is apparently a serious cruelty against the petitioner." the family court had recorded in its order of February 2026. The high court also took note of the family court disbelieving her dowry allegations after she admitted during cross-examination that no Bullet motorcycle allegedly cited by her as dowry in fact was given. "The claim made by the respondent (wife) in her reply is found false and an apparent attempt to defame the petitioner by levelling false allegations of dowry," the family court recorded. The family court had further held that repeated allegations against the husband and his family without supporting evidence amounted to cruelty. Taking note of the same the high court ruled that the family court has "rightly dissolved the marriage between the parties on the grounds of cruelty on part of respondent-wife," but did not approve of adultery allegations....