News: The Delhi High Court, in Shelly Mahajan v. MS Bhanushree Bahl & Anr (2024), delivered a first-of-its-kind order allowing a spouse to seek civil damages from a third party accused of intentionally interfering in a marriage.
About Tort of Alienation of Affection (AoA)
- AoA is a common law tort (a “heart-balm” action) that allows a spouse to sue a third person for willfully and maliciously interfering in a marriage and causing loss of affection, companionship, or consortium.
- Idea behind: It is based on the idea that marriage carries legal interests such as consortium, intimacy, support and a shared life that can be legally protected from wrongful interference.
- It is not codified or expressly recognized in Indian law.
- It is not prohibited either but has been acknowledged in several judicial decisions.
- To establish a valid AoA claim, the plaintiff must prove:
- Intentional and wrongful conduct by the third party directed at alienating the marriage.
- Causation is that the conduct directly caused a legal injury or the loss of marital affection.
- The loss suffered is measurable and legally cognisable (capable of rational assessment).
- Jurisdiction: Civil courts have the authority to hear AoA cases.
Judgement under Shelly Mahajan v. MS Bhanushree Bahl & Anr case (2025)
- In Shelly Mahajan v. MS Bhanushree Bahl & Anr, the Delhi High Court (HC), in a first-of-its-kind decision, allowed a civil damages suit against a third-party accused of interfering in a marriage.
- The wife (plaintiff) sought compensation from her husband’s alleged affair partner, claiming that the third party’s wrongful interference caused the breakdown of her marriage.
- The HC clarified that while Joseph Shine case removed the criminal aspect of adultery, it did not confer immunity on third parties from civil liability for malicious interference in a marriage.
- Matrimonial laws (like the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) provide remedies between spouses, such as divorce or judicial separation, but not against third parties.
- Therefore, in the absence of a statutory bar, a civil tort claim for alienation of affection is legally maintainable.
- The HC overruled objections about the maintainability of the suit and issued summons, allowing the case to proceed.
- Legal Principle Affirmed:
- A spouse’s right to marital consortium and affection is a protectable legal interest.
- Correspondingly, third parties owe a duty not to intentionally and wrongfully interfere with that relationship.
- Where such interference causes demonstrable harm, damages may be claimed under civil law.
Other Judicial References
- Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat (2013): The Supreme Court observed that alienation of affection by a stranger, if proved, constitutes an intentional tort.
- Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013): The Court noted that children may also have a potential cause of action if a third party alienates their parents’ affection.
- In Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code was struck down and thereby decriminalised adultery. The Court ruled that consensual extramarital relationships cannot attract criminal punishment, affirming that adultery is a matter of personal privacy.
- The Court clarified that while adultery is no longer a criminal offence, it remains a civil wrong and a valid ground for divorce.
