Spouse Can Sue Partner’s Lover for Damages Over Marriage Interference, Says Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that a civil suit filed by a spouse seeking damages from the alleged paramour of the other spouse is maintainable for intentional interference in a marriage, and accordingly issued summons to the alleged paramour.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was dealing with a civil suit filed by a wife against her husband’s alleged paramour, seeking Rs 4 crore in damages on the premise that she was entitled to the affection and companionship of her husband, which was allegedly withdrawn due to the active and mala fide conduct of the paramour. The plea was grounded in the tort of Alienation of Affection (AoA), alleging that the paramour knowingly and intentionally interfered with the marital relationship, thereby causing its breakdown.

Alienation of Affection (AoA) is a common law “heart-balm” tort, originating in Anglo-American jurisprudence, which treats the loss of marital companionship and consortium caused by a third party’s wrongful conduct as a civil injury.

Citing American jurist Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, the Court said that applying Hohfeld’s analysis to the present facts does not render the notion of an AoA action conceptually incoherent. It observed: “If 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.”

The Court noted that an action for alienation of affection may be maintainable under the Hohfeldian framework, while clarifying that the question of whether any relief can ultimately be granted would be determined during trial. It added that such a civil action for wrongful interference is analytically sustainable so long as the plaintiff can, on proper pleading and proof, establish:

(i) intentional and wrongful conduct by the defendant directed at alienating the marital relationship of the plaintiff,

(ii) clear causation linking that conduct to a legally cognisable injury, and

(iii) that the loss claimed is susceptible of rational assessment.

Notably, the plaintiff married her husband in 2012, and the couple had twin children in 2018. According to the plaintiff, the marriage was initially stable but began to deteriorate when the alleged paramour, a close professional associate of her husband, started accompanying him on frequent work trips. Upon confrontation, the paramour is alleged to have categorically refused to end the relationship, and defendant no.2 thereafter purportedly began openly appearing with her at social gatherings and humiliating the plaintiff at public functions. It is in this backdrop that the husband filed for divorce. However, the wife then instituted the present proceedings seeking damages for the tort of AoA.

Appearing for the plaintiff, Advocate Malavika Rajkotia argued that her client had suffered damages on account of the alleged overt acts of the alleged paramour, which resulted in the withdrawal of the affection and companionship to which she was entitled from her husband. On this basis, the plaintiff asserted that she is the victim of the tort of AoA and is entitled to civil damages.

The husband, on the other hand, represented by Advocate Prabhjit Jauhar, contested the very maintainability of the suit, noting that the issue of adultery has already been framed before the Family Court at the plaintiff’s instance. He submitted that the entire dispute emanates from the marital relationship between the parties and falls squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court, and that under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), read with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), the jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted.

The alleged paramour, through Advocate K.C. Jain, further submitted she is entirely alien to the marital relationship between the plaintiff and defendant no.2, and therefore owes no legal duty to refrain from interacting with defendant no.2.

Disagreeing with the arguments made by both the husband and the alleged paramour, the Court said it was satisfied that the instant proceedings do not fall within the ambit of Section 7(1)(d) of the Family Courts Act, which is confined to suits or proceedings “arising out of a marital relationship.” The Court observed that the instant lis is wholly about civil rights related to tort, and that the Civil Court retains jurisdiction.

Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that the State has no role in criminalising the private lives and intimate choices of individuals, and that neither the State nor its executive ought to interfere in such domains. However, it clarified that there is no absolute right for any individual to maintain intimate relations outside marriage without consequences. "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," the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court held that the plaint prima facie disclosed a civil cause of action for tortious interference, i.e., Alienation of Affection, distinct from remedies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Courts.

However, it clarified that the present observations are confined solely to examining the maintainability of the suit at the summons stage, without touching upon the merits.

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.

Case Title: SHELLY MAHAJAN v. MS BHANUSHREE BAHL & ANR

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Judgment Date: 15 September 2025