Tinder rage: Ex acquitted of assaulting wife's new lover

The estranged husband denied charges of assaulting the woman's lover. Photo / File

A woman's estranged husband admits he got angry when he walked in on her having sex with another man, but denies kicking him.

Giving evidence during the man's judge-alone trial in the Queenstown District Court on Monday, the woman's lover said he went to her home on the morning of May 3, a few days after their first meeting through the Tinder dating app.

After talking for a few hours, they went to her bedroom and began having sex, but were interrupted about half an hour later when her former husband appeared in the doorway.

The estranged husband, who appeared before Judge Kevin Phillips, denied charges of assaulting the woman's lover and of failing to assist a constable with a search.

Judge Phillips permanently suppressed the names of the defendant, the victim and the woman.

The woman's lover told the court the defendant came into the room with his fists clenched, stood in front of him and said ''get your clothes and get out of here before I knock you down''.

Although the woman went and stood between them, the defendant kicked him on his left hip, although he blocked the blow with his arm. He then grabbed his clothes, went to the adjoining living room and began getting dressed.

The defendant followed him, filming him with his cellphone.

The woman told the court she left the defendant in February, moving out of their home with their three children and into a house nearby they jointly owned.

On the day in question, she and the man had been kissing and hugging and were about to have intercourse when she saw the defendant standing in the doorway with a spare house key in his hand.

The defendant said to the victim, ''what the f... are you doing here?''.

He then approached the victim, and despite the woman's attempts to stay between them, kicked him on the leg.

He then pushed the victim out of the bedroom as he was gathering his clothes, followed him out and began filming him with his cellphone.

He then turned the camera on her, telling her he had filmed them and would post the footage on social media.

''He told me he would tell our kids what kind of mother I am.''

The defendant said he went to his former wife's home about noon, instead of 4pm as earlier arranged, to deliver linen so she could clean a rental unit they jointly owned.

On entering, he could hear a loud ''sound of struggle'' coming from the bedroom. Concerned for her safety, he went to check what was happening, and saw them having sex.

Under cross-examination, he agreed he was angry, but had not kicked the victim.

''I never touched him. I was angry, but I wouldn't let my emotions carry me away.''

Constable Jeffery Haig told the court he and a colleague went to the woman's home in response to her complaint, and while they were there, the defendant came back.

They arrested him and seized two cellphones, for which the defendant refused to provide the passwords.

Judge Phillips said the evidence of the victim and the woman was contradictory.

Although the defendant's evidence was also partly self-contradictory, he could not establish beyond reasonable doubt that either charge could be proven, and found him not guilty.