“Third party must not intentionally and wrongfully interfere with marital relationship by acts calculated to alienate the affection of a spouse
The Delhi High Court ruled that a spouse may file a civil suit seeking damages from the other spouse’s lover for deliberately interfering in the marriage. In doing so, the Court discussed the emerging concept of “Alienation of Affection” and clarified that such actions are maintainable before a Civil Court, not a Family Court.
Dismissing objections to the suit’s maintainability, the Court directed summons to be issued to the husband and his alleged lover in the wife’s case.
The Court held that a civil claim for wrongful interference in marriage is maintainable, provided the plaintiff can, through proper pleadings and evidence, establish:
- deliberate and wrongful conduct by the defendant aimed at disrupting the marital relationship,
- a clear causal link between such conduct and a legally recognizable injury to the plaintiff, and
- that the damages sought are capable of reasonable assessment.
The Court noted that no third party should “intentionally and wrongfully interfere” in a marriage so as to alienate one spouse’s affection from the other.
“….a spouse is held to possess a protectable interest in marital consortium, intimacy, and companionship, the correlative legal duty would be that any third party must not intentionally and wrongfully interfere with that relationship by acts calculated to alienate the affection of a spouse to the other spouse, which the other spouse is legally entitled to,” Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said.
“At the same time, a spouse retains the inherent liberty to make personal choices. Where the conduct of a spouse is completely voluntary, not induced and uncoerced, that exercise of such liberty of one spouse will defeat third-party liability,” the Court added.
Justice Kaurav was hearing a case filed by a married woman seeking damages, claiming she was deprived of the affection and companionship of her husband due to the deliberate and malicious actions of the husband’s lover.
While seeking damages for “Alienation of Affection,” the woman alleged that the other woman had deliberately and knowingly interfered in her marriage, leading to its breakdown.
She claimed that upon confrontation, her husband refused to end the extramarital relationship and began openly appearing with the third party at social events, causing her public humiliation. Subsequently, her husband filed for divorce.
Against this backdrop, the wife approached the Delhi High Court, naming the other woman as defendant no.1 and her husband as defendant no.2, seeking damages from defendant no.1 for alienating her husband’s affection.
The defendants challenged the suit’s maintainability, arguing that the dispute arose from a marital relationship and thus fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. They also contended that the alleged adultery was already under consideration in the husband’s pending divorce proceedings.
The High Court, deeming the suit maintainable, held that the alleged conduct constituted a civil wrong arising from independent tortious acts.
While issuing summons, the Court noted that Indian law does not explicitly recognize the tort of Alienation of Affection; the concept is borrowed from Anglo-American common law and falls under the category of “heart-balm” torts.
“Although a third party may be instrumental in alienating the affection or companionship of a spouse, it is rare for the aggrieved spouse to pursue an action against such an intruder. Even if such an action were pursued, it would raise questions as to whether the injury could be adequately compensated through monetary damages, since such a remedy may not restore the marriage, but only compensate for harm suffered,” the Court said citing a Supreme Court ruling in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat (2013) 10 SCC 48.
The Court observed that neither party had cited any reported civil case awarding damages for the tort of Alienation of Affection, noting that while the concept is recognized in judicial discussions, it has not been formally adopted in law.
“To date, no Indian Court appears to have granted relief in a civil suit seeking damages solely on the basis of AoA, nor has any Court prescribed a procedure for adjudicating such a claim. Thus, while Indian jurisprudence has acknowledged the concept in principle as a possible tort, and the action by the aggrieved spouse to be maintainable, the Courts have, thus far, not evolved any substantive law or remedies to support its enforcement in practice,” the Court said.
The Court further stated that ongoing matrimonial proceedings between the plaintiff and her husband do not prevent her from filing a separate civil suit for damages against the man with whom he was involved.
“The decision in Joseph Shine decriminalised adultery; it did not create a license to enter into intimate relationships beyond #marriage, free from civil or legal implications…While the exercise of personal liberty is not criminal and therefore cannot attract penal sanction by the State as a matter of public offence, such conduct may nevertheless give rise to civil consequences,” the Court said.
The Court further clarified that Section 7(d) of the Family Courts Act does not apply, as it is limited to disputes “arising out of a marital relationship.” Since the present case involves a tortious claim, the Court held that a Civil Court has jurisdiction to hear it.