“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 partner for deliberately interfering in the marriage. In its judgment, the Court analyzed the evolving doctrine of “Alienation of Affection” and clarified that such claims fall under the jurisdiction of a Civil Court, rather than a Family Court.
Dismissing objections 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 noted that a civil claim for wrongful interference in a marriage is maintainable, provided the plaintiff can substantiate it with proper pleadings and supporting evidence.
- deliberate and wrongful acts by the defendant intended to disrupt the marital relationship,
- a clear causal link between these acts and a legally recognized harm suffered by the plaintiff, and
- that the damages claimed are capable of being reasonably quantified.
The Court stressed that no third party should “knowingly and wrongfully interfere” in a marriage to alienate 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 filed by a married woman seeking damages, claiming 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 “Alienation of Affection” claim, the woman alleged that the third party had deliberately and knowingly interfered in her marriage, ultimately causing its breakdown. She further stated that when confronted, her husband refused to end the extramarital relationship and began appearing publicly with the other woman at social events, leading to 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 challenged the maintainability of the suit, contending that the dispute arose from a marital relationship and therefore fell solely within the jurisdiction of the Family Court under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. They also noted that the alleged adultery was already being addressed in the husband’s ongoing divorce proceedings.
The High Court, however, held that the suit was maintainable, observing that the alleged acts amounted to a civil wrong arising from independent tortious conduct.
While issuing summons, the Court noted that Indian law does not explicitly recognize the tort of Alienation of Affection. The concept is derived from Anglo-American common law and is categorized 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 observed that neither party had cited any reported civil case granting damages for Alienation of Affection. It further noted that while 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 ruled that the pendency of matrimonial proceedings between the plaintiff and her husband does not prevent her from filing a separate civil suit for damages against her husband’s alleged partner.
“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.” Given that the present case involves a tortious claim, the Court held that a Civil Court has jurisdiction to hear it.