“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 held that a spouse can file a civil suit claiming damages from the other spouse’s partner for intentionally interfering in the marriage. In its judgment, the Court examined the evolving principle of “Alienation of Affection” and clarified that such claims fall within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court, not a Family Court.
Rejecting challenges to the suit’s maintainability, the Court directed that summons be issued to both the husband and his alleged partner in the wife’s case.
The Court further observed that a civil action for wrongful interference in marriage is maintainable, provided the plaintiff can demonstrate, through proper pleadings and supporting evidence:
- intentional and wrongful actions by the defendant aimed at undermining the marital relationship,
- a direct causal connection between such actions and a legally recognized harm suffered by the plaintiff, and
- that the claimed damages can be reasonably quantified.
The Court emphasized that no third party should “knowingly and wrongfully interfere” in a marriage to estrange the affection of one spouse 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 brought by a married woman seeking damages, alleging that she was deprived of her husband’s affection and companionship due to the intentional and malicious actions of her husband’s lover.
In her claim for “Alienation of Affection,” the woman stated that the third party had deliberately and knowingly interfered in her marriage, ultimately causing its breakdown.
She further alleged that when confronted, her husband refused to end the extramarital relationship and began appearing publicly with the other woman at social events, resulting in her humiliation. Eventually, her husband filed for divorce.
In this context, 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 contested the suit’s maintainability, arguing that the dispute stemmed from a marital relationship and therefore fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Family Court under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. They also pointed out that the alleged adultery was already being addressed in the husband’s ongoing divorce proceedings.
The High Court, however, held the suit to be maintainable, observing that the alleged actions constituted a civil wrong arising from independent tortious conduct.
While issuing summons, the Court observed that Indian law does not explicitly recognize the tort of Alienation of Affection. The concept is derived from Anglo-American common law and is classified as a “heart-balm” tort.
“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 noted that neither party had referenced any reported civil case awarding damages for Alienation of Affection. It observed that, although the concept has been discussed in judicial commentary, it has not been formally recognized under Indian 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 held that the existence of ongoing matrimonial proceedings between the plaintiff and her husband does not bar her from pursuing 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 is inapplicable, as it pertains only to disputes “arising out of a marital relationship.” Since the present matter involves a tortious claim, the Court held that a Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate it.
