Civil suit against spouse’s lover for alienation of affection maintainable: Delhi high court

In a important introspection of an emerging tort rule successful Indian law, the Delhi High Court has held that a civilian suit seeking damages from a 3rd enactment for interfering successful a marital narration and alienating a spouse’s affection is maintainable earlier a Civil Court.

The Court made it wide that these claims are based connected tortious interference and not matrimonial alleviation arsenic specified and frankincense bash not travel nether the exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts.The bid was passed by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav successful Shelly Mahajan v. Ms Bhanushree Bahl & Anr, wherever summons were issued to the hubby and the paramour successful a damages suit founded connected the conception of “Alienation of Affection” (AoA).

The Court denied that the preliminary objections to maintainability were sustained and that the plaint has revealed a civilian origin of enactment that should beryllium adjudicated successful the trial.The Court articulated the governing principle:“….a spouse is held to person a protectable involvement successful marital consortium, intimacy, and companionship, the correlative ineligible work would beryllium that immoderate 3rd enactment indispensable not intentionally and wrongfully interfere with that narration by acts calculated to alienate the affection of a spouse to the different spouse, which the different spouse is legally entitled to.”

“At the aforesaid time, a spouse retains the inherent liberty to marque idiosyncratic choices. Where the behaviour of a spouse is wholly voluntary, not induced and uncoerced, that workout of specified liberty of 1 spouse volition decision third-party liability.”At the aforesaid time, it acknowledged autonomy successful the marriage.Dispute Background and AllegationsThe suit was instituted by the woman (Plaintiff), seeking damages connected the premise that she was entitled to the affection and companionship of her husband, who had withdrawn specified affection connected relationship of intentional behaviour of different pistillate who had entered into a adjacent narration with him.The matrimony was solemnized successful 2012. The mates were blessed with duplicate children successful 2018 and were besides progressive successful shared nonrecreational engagements wrong the household enterprise. The narration betwixt the hubby and the different pistillate (Defendants) developed aft she joined a related task and gradually became intimately associated with him done question and societal interactions. This relation continued contempt her being alert of the subsisting matrimony betwixt the hubby and his wife.The substance escalated successful March 2023 erstwhile the woman overheard and discovered intimate remarks and letters exchanged betwixt the hubby and the different woman, indicating an extramarital relationship. This was followed by nationalist relation betwixt the hubby and the different pistillate contempt confrontation and household intervention. In this backdrop, the husband-initiated divorcement proceedings. In presumption of this, the woman instituted a civilian enactment seeking damages for alienation of affection connected the crushed that determination was deliberate interference by the 3rd enactment which led to the breakdown of the marriage.Objections to MaintainabilityThe defendants opposed the maintainability of the suit connected the grounds that the quality was a effect of a marital narration and hence was exclusively wrong the jurisdiction of the Family Court nether Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. It was further argued that the allegations of adultery were pending information successful the matrimonial cases and that the suit was a parallel forum challenge.

Additionally, the husband’s counsel utilized idiosyncratic autonomy and the principles emerging from the Supreme Court’s determination decriminalizing adultery to reason against judicial interference successful backstage choices.At the threshold, the Court dismissed specified submissions, holding that the origin of enactment alleged was antithetic from matrimonial reliefs including divorcement and maintenance. Applying the “cause of action” trial articulated successful precedent, the Court stated that the suit was not a matrimonial quality but acrophobic an autarkic tortious wounded caused by a 3rd party.

It emphasized that jurisdiction of Civil Courts cannot beryllium excluded unless expressly oregon needfully barred.The Court observed that the assertion was brought arsenic compensation arising owed to wrongful interference and not enforcement of marital obligations and truthful was not taxable to Family Court exclusivity. The pendency of divorcement proceedings did not preclude damages assertion since remedies pursued successful each forum were legally distinct.It held:“The alleviation sought successful this suit, i.e., compensation for tortious interference, is chiseled from the remedies pursued nether the matrimonial law. Even if determination is factual overlap, the Civil Court is competent to proceed…”Doctrinal Examination of Alienation of AffectionThe Court made an extended doctrinal enquiry into the past of the tort, observing that Indian instrumentality does not specifically admit alienation of affection and that the doctrine has its roots successful Anglo-American communal instrumentality ‘heart-balm’ actions. Referring to Supreme Court jurisprudence, it accepted that the interference with the marital consortium could technically beryllium an intentional tort adjacent though it recognized that the doctrine continues to beryllium underdeveloped successful India.The Court noted:“Although a 3rd enactment whitethorn beryllium instrumental successful alienating the affection oregon companionship of a spouse, it is uncommon for the aggrieved spouse to prosecute an enactment against specified an intruder…. To date, nary Indian Court appears to person granted alleviation successful a civilian suit seeking damages solely connected the ground of AoA… the Courts have, frankincense far, not evolved immoderate substantive instrumentality oregon remedies to enactment its enforcement successful practice.”The Court additionally emphasized that portion English communal instrumentality principles whitethorn person persuasive worth successful shaping Indian tort jurisprudence, statutory developments successful overseas jurisdictions bash not use proprio vigor, and home courts indispensable germinate principles accordant with Indian law and legislative frameworks.The Court, however, recovered that theoretical acknowledgment of the tort, and convincing common-law principles were capable to let introspection of specified claims wherever pleaded facts disclosed intentional interference susceptible of causing compensable injury.Clarifying the analytical model for specified actions, the Court held that maintainability depends connected whether the plaintiff tin found wrongful interference, causation, and measurable loss. It stated:“A civilian enactment for wrongful interference successful matrimony is sustainable, truthful agelong arsenic the plaintiff can… found intentional and wrongful conduct… wide causation… and that the nonaccomplishment claimed is susceptible of rational assessment.”Elaborating further, the Court identified these requirements arsenic forming the threshold operation governing specified tort actions:

This articulation was the ground of allowing the suit to walk beyond threshold scrutiny.The Court further emphasized that designation of autonomy pursuing decriminalization of adultery does not extinguish civilian consequences, stating:“The determination successful Joseph Shine decriminalised adultery; it did not make a licence to participate into intimate relationships beyond marriage, escaped from civilian oregon ineligible implications… specified behaviour whitethorn nevertheless springiness emergence to civilian consequences.”By striking a equilibrium betwixt the idiosyncratic freedoms and societal norms, the Court saw matrimony arsenic a societal and ineligible instauration associated with the norms of exclusivity. It observed that though idiosyncratic liberty safeguards intimate decision-making against transgression law, civilian instrumentality could inactive admit wounded that results astir the usurpation of obligating narration successful the lawsuit of third-party involution being claimed.It besides reiterated that liability would not originate if the spouse acted wholly independently:“Where the behaviour of a spouse is wholly voluntary… that workout of specified liberty… volition decision third-party liability.”However, factual determination of voluntariness and inducement requires proceedings grounds and cannot beryllium resolved astatine the summons stage.The Court truthful held that the plaint disclosed a civilian origin of enactment grounded successful alleged tortious interference chiseled from matrimonial remedies and not barred by Section 7 of the Family Courts Act.

Finding nary statutory exclusion of jurisdiction and noting that the contented required evidentiary adjudication, it directed issuance of summons to the defendants portion reserving their close to question rejection of the plaint astatine an due stage.CS(OS) 602/2025 & I.A. 21712-21714/2025SHELLY MAHAJAN vs MS BHANUSHREE BAHL & ANR.For Plaintiff: Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, Ms. Purva Dua and Mr. Mayank Grover, Advocates.For Defendants: Mr. K.C. Jain, Advocate for D-1, Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Ms. Tulika Bhatnagar and Mr. Sehaj Kataria, Advocates for D-2.(Vatsal Chandra is simply a Delhi-based Advocate practicing earlier the courts of Delhi NCR.)