Delhi High Court: Spouse Can Sue Partner’s Lover for Damages in “Alienation of Affection” Cases

Introduction

In a pathbreaking ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that a spouse can sue their partner’s lover for damages caused by intentional interference in marriage. The Court recognized the principle of Alienation of Affection (AoA), a concept derived from Anglo-American common law, and held that a civil action is maintainable in such cases.

The decision marks one of the rare judicial acknowledgments of AoA in India, expanding the scope of civil remedies available to aggrieved spouses. Importantly, the Court clarified that such suits are maintainable before civil courts and not family courts, thereby carving out a distinct legal pathway for tort claims arising from wrongful interference in marital relationships.

What Is “Alienation of Affection”?

Alienation of Affection is often referred to as a “heart-balm tort”. Traditionally recognized in American and English common law, it allows a spouse to sue a third party for wrongfully and intentionally interfering with their marital consortium.

The tort rests on the idea that every spouse has a legally protectable interest in the affection, companionship, and consortium of their partner. A third party who deliberately alienates such affection commits a civil wrong.

While Indian courts have occasionally acknowledged this principle in criminal or matrimonial contexts, no civil damages case on AoA had been recognized until now.

Facts of the Case:

The plaintiff, a married woman, filed a civil suit against her husband and his alleged lover. She claimed that:

• Her husband’s lover knowingly and intentionally interfered with her marital relationship.
• Due to this interference, the affection and companionship of her husband were withdrawn.
• Her husband began openly appearing with the other woman in social gatherings, humiliating her publicly.
• Eventually, the husband filed for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences.

The wife, therefore, sought damages from the lover for wrongful alienation of affection, arguing that her legally protected marital rights were infringed.

The defendants contested the suit, arguing that:

1. The matter fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act.
2. The allegations of adultery were already subject to adjudication in the divorce petition.
3. Indian law does not recognize the tort of AoA as an actionable civil wrong.

Court’s Observations

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while issuing summons in the case, made the following key observations:

1. Maintainability of Civil Suit

The Court held that the suit is maintainable in a civil court and not barred by Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. While matrimonial disputes are handled by family courts, a claim for damages on account of independent tortious conduct is a separate civil action.

2. Protectable Marital Interest

The Court reaffirmed that every spouse has a protectable interest in marital consortium, intimacy, and companionship. Thus, any third party must not intentionally and wrongfully interfere with this relationship by acts calculated to alienate the affection of one spouse from the other.

3. Elements of Actionable Claim

For an AoA claim to succeed, the plaintiff must establish:

• Intentional and wrongful conduct by the defendant,
• Causation, i.e., proof that such conduct led to the alienation, and
• Quantifiable damages, capable of rational assessment.

4. Voluntary Conduct of Spouse

Importantly, the Court clarified that if the spouse’s actions are entirely voluntary, uninduced, and uncoerced, third-party liability cannot be imposed. A spouse retains the liberty to make personal choices.

5. Distinction from Criminal Law

Citing Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), where the Supreme Court decriminalized adultery, the Court noted that while adultery is no longer a crime, it can still have civil consequences. Decriminalization does not create a free license to interfere in marriages without legal liability.

Reference to Supreme Court Precedent

The Court referred to Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat (2013) 10 SCC 48, where the Supreme Court recognized that extra-marital affairs could amount to mental cruelty in matrimonial disputes.

While no Indian court had previously granted damages purely for AoA, the Delhi High Court observed that the concept remains judicially acknowledged, even though not formally adopted through legislation.

Why the Judgment Matters

This ruling is significant for several reasons:

1. First Judicial Recognition in Civil Context: While Indian courts have acknowledged AoA in theory, this case represents one of the first instances where damages have been sought directly from a spouse’s lover.
2. Expansion of Civil Remedies: The ruling broadens the remedies available to aggrieved spouses beyond divorce, maintenance, or restitution of conjugal rights.
3. Balancing Liberty and Accountability: The Court carefully distinguished between voluntary marital choices and wrongful third-party interference, ensuring that personal liberty is respected while wrongful acts remain actionable.
4. Potential Future Jurisprudence: This case may pave the way for formal recognition of AoA as a tort in Indian civil law, akin to its status in some Western jurisdictions.

Challenges and Criticism

Despite its novelty, the recognition of AoA raises several questions:

• Assessment of Damages: How can the loss of affection, humiliation, or companionship be quantified in monetary terms?
• Proof Burden: Establishing causation between the lover’s actions and the breakdown of the marriage may be difficult.
• Policy Concerns: Some critics argue that such suits may lead to harassment, moral policing, or frivolous litigation.

However, the Court emphasized that these issues do not negate the maintainability of the suit at the threshold stage.

Alienation of Affection and Indian Law

At present, Indian legislation does not expressly recognize AoA. The recognition remains judge-made, derived from common law principles.

In contrast, several U.S. states have codified or retained AoA as a cause of action, while others have abolished it as outdated. India now stands at a crossroads — whether to formally recognize such torts or leave them to judicial discretion.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Shelly Mahajan v. \_ is a landmark development in Indian civil jurisprudence. By holding that a spouse can sue their partner’s lover for damages under the principle of Alienation of Affection, the Court has opened a new avenue of civil redress for marital wrongs.

While questions of enforcement, damages, and proof remain, the decision underscores that marital consortium is a protectable legal interest, and wrongful interference with it will not go unchecked.

This case is likely to spark wider debates on the recognition of heart-balm torts in India and may influence future legislation or judicial development in family and tort law.

Also Read

Delhi Court Grants Bail in False Promise of Marriage Rape Case: Not a ‘Situationship’ but a Consensual Relationship

Kerala High Court Clarifies: Muslim Law Permits Polygamy Only If All Wives Can Be Maintained Equally