1 week ago
Delhi Court Rejects ₹50 Lakh Alienation of Affection Claim
A wife asked a Delhi court for ₹50 lakh from another woman.
She said the woman took away her husband’s affection and damaged the marriage.
The wife said her husband began the relationship after a trip in 2009.
She also said he left their home and later had a child with the other woman.
The court said a relationship outside marriage is not automatically enough to make someone legally responsible.
It said the husband, not the other woman, had the duty to honor the marriage.
The wife also could not prove that the marriage had been loving before the relationship began.
The court therefore refused to award damages, although it said the case was filed within the applicable limitation period.
A Delhi court rejected a wife’s ₹50 lakh damages claim against another woman over alleged interference in her marriage.
The wife alleged her husband began the relationship after a 2009 United States trip and left home in January 2013.
She claimed the other woman knowingly pursued her husband, later entered a bigamous marriage with him, and had a daughter in 2016.
The court said an extramarital relationship alone does not prove the legal requirements for alienation of affection.
The court also found the wife had not proved a loving marriage before the alleged interference, while holding that the claim was not time-barred.
- Who
- A wife, her husband, and another woman were involved in the dispute.
- What
- The wife sought ₹50 lakh in damages under the tort of alienation of affection.
- Where
- The case was heard by a Delhi court.
- When
- The couple married in November 2001; the alleged relationship began after 2009, and the suit was filed in 2024.
- Why
- The wife alleged that the other woman intentionally interfered with her marriage, causing emotional and financial harm and loss of companionship.
Wife’s Allegations
Court’s Reasoning
Interference in marriage
Wife’s Allegations
The wife alleged that the other woman knew her husband was married, intentionally stole his affection, and destroyed the marriage.
Court’s Reasoning
The court said the duty to honor the marriage rested with the husband, and the other woman had no legal duty to reject his advances.
Evidence of harm
Wife’s Allegations
The wife claimed the alleged interference caused mental trauma, financial difficulties, and loss of companionship.
Court’s Reasoning
The court said her suspicions and information allegedly received from a driver who died before testifying could not replace proof.
Existence of marital affection
Wife’s Allegations
The wife sought damages for the loss of her husband’s affection and companionship.
Court’s Reasoning
The court found she had not proved that a genuine, loving relationship existed before the alleged interference; she had also acknowledged abuse and limited physical intimacy during the marriage.
Key facts
- Damages sought
- ₹50 lakh, reduced from an initial claim of ₹1 crore
- Marriage
- The couple married in November 2001
- Alleged relationship
- The wife said it began after her husband’s 2009 trip to the United States
- Suit filed
- 2024
- Legal basis
- The common-law tort of alienation of affection, also called a heart-balm action
- Court’s conclusion
- The wife did not establish the required elements or prove a loving relationship before the alleged interference
- Limitation finding
- The court held that alienation of affection was a continuing wrong under Section 22 of the Limitation Act
Quotes
Delhi court
The Delhi court that adjudicated the wife’s alienation-of-affection damages suit.
“There was no corresponding duty upon her to thwart away any advances made by the defendant no. 2, since, the corresponding duty of conjugal relationship rested only on the defendant no. 2 and the defendant no. 1 cannot be saddled with such an obligation under the law”
businesstoday.in
“Merely because two consenting adults had entered into a consensual sexual relationship outside the marriage and it led to the birth of a child, does not in itself establish the requirements with respect to the ingredients of the present tort of AoA”
businesstoday.in
Sources
Related news
Calcutta High Court Upholds Divorce in Separate-Living Dispute
Chhattisgarh High Court Grants Divorce Over Mental Cruelty
Chhattisgarh High Court sets aside divorce decree for 'hell-bent' husband
Jharkhand court: no cow at home not grounds for divorce
High Court cancels woman's FIR against mother-in-law over vague allegations
PUCL Urges CJI Action Over Rajasthan High Court Allegations
Supreme Court Questions IPS Deputation for CAPF Leadership Positions
Supreme Court Quashes 20-Year Conviction, Reaffirms Juvenile Legal Protections
Two Years After RG Kar Doctor's Rape-Murder, Case Remains Unresolved
ED widens Chhattisgarh probes with two arrests and searches
