Delhi Court Rejects ₹50 Lakh Damages Claim in Alienation of Affection Case
In a recent ruling, the Saket Courts in Delhi dismissed a lawsuit filed by a woman seeking ₹50 lakh in damages from her husband’s alleged paramour, accusing her of ‘stealing’ his affection. The presiding judge, District Judge Atul Ahlawat, ruled against the plaintiff on August 20, citing insufficient evidence to support her claims that the extra-marital partner actively induced or encouraged the dissolution of the marriage.
The Court found no substantial evidence demonstrating that the husband’s affair partner had influenced him to abandon his marital obligations. The plaintiff’s reliance on suspicions and information from a now-deceased driver could not substitute for concrete evidence. Judge Ahlawat emphasized, “Merely because two consenting adults engaged in a consensual extramarital relationship, resulting in the birth of a child, does not suffice to meet the criteria for the tort of Alienation of Affection (AoA).”
Court Upholds Husband’s Responsibility in Marital Relationship
The Court further clarified that the duty to maintain marital fidelity lies with the husband, not the third party. “The defendant no. 1, or the alleged paramour, does not carry a legal obligation to repel any advances made by the defendant no. 2, as the conjugal duty solely rests with the husband,” the Court stated.
The couple in question married in November 2001. The lawsuit, filed in 2024, accused the husband of beginning an extramarital relationship following a 2009 trip to the United States, subsequently abandoning the matrimonial home in January 2013. The plaintiff alleged that the paramour knowingly engaged in a bigamous marriage with her husband in 2015, and the couple had a daughter in 2016. Initially seeking ₹1 crore in damages, the plaintiff later reduced her claim to ₹50 lakh. The husband was included as a pro forma defendant, with no relief sought against him.
Legal Context and Court’s Analysis
The claim was based on the common law tort of alienation of affection, a ‘heart-balm’ action allowing a spouse to seek damages from a third party who disrupts a marital relationship. The Court noted that while this tort is not codified in Indian law, it was acknowledged by the Supreme Court in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat. For such a claim to succeed, the claimant must prove the existence of genuine marital affection before the interference, its destruction, and that this was directly caused by the third party’s intentional actions.
The Court concluded that the mere presence of an extramarital affair does not establish liability, noting that one cannot be held accountable merely for being the passive recipient of someone else’s affection. In this case, the wife failed to demonstrate that she shared a loving bond with her husband prior to the alleged interference. Her cross-examination revealed a history of physical, emotional, and mental abuse, as well as a lack of physical intimacy, undermining her claims.
Ruling on Limitation Period
While the Court denied the plaintiff any relief, it dismissed the defendants’ argument regarding the suit being time-barred. It held that alienation of affection constitutes a continuing wrong under Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows a fresh limitation period to commence with each instance of alleged interference.
