The Delhi High Court has ruled that a spouse can file a civil suit seeking damages against their partner’s lover if it is proven that the third party wrongfully and intentionally interfered with the marriage. The Court examined the concept of “Alienation of Affection”, holding that such claims fall under the jurisdiction of Civil Courts, not Family Courts. Summons were accordingly issued to a husband and his alleged lover in a suit filed by the wife.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav clarified that a spouse has a protectable right to marital companionship, intimacy, and consortium. Any third party who deliberately disrupts this relationship with actions intended to alienate one spouse’s affection may be held liable. However, the Court also emphasized that if the spouse’s actions are entirely voluntary and uncoerced, no liability can be imposed on the third party.
The case arose when a woman alleged that her husband’s lover deliberately caused the breakdown of her marriage, leading to public humiliation and eventually divorce proceedings. She sought compensation from the lover for damages caused by this interference. The defendants argued that the matter should fall exclusively under the Family Court’s jurisdiction as it related to a marital dispute.
Rejecting this objection, the High Court held that the claim was an actionable civil wrong, independent of matrimonial law remedies. While Indian law does not explicitly recognize the tort of Alienation of Affection, the Court noted its roots in Anglo-American common law, placing it under the category of “heart-balm” torts.
Citing earlier Supreme Court observations, the Court acknowledged that though such claims are rare in India, they remain legally possible. Importantly, the Court stated that the Joseph Shine judgment decriminalizing adultery did not prevent civil claims arising out of extramarital relationships. It stressed that while personal liberty protects consensual relationships from criminal sanctions, civil consequences may still follow if a third party’s actions interfere with a marriage.
The Court concluded that the pendency of matrimonial disputes between the couple does not bar a separate civil claim for damages against a third party. Since the wife’s claim was based on tortious interference, the Civil Court was competent to proceed with the matter.
