Wife seeks ₹50 lakh from husband's paramour for 'stealing' his affection: What Delhi court said

A Delhi court recently dismissed a woman's suit seeking ₹50 lakh in damages from her husband's alleged extra-marital partner for “stealing” his affection.

District Judge Atul Ahlawat of Saket Courts on August 20 ruled that the wife failed to prove that her husband's affair partner actively induced or encouraged the breakdown of the marriage.

The Court found no direct evidence to show that the other woman had induced the husband to leave his wife. It added that the wife's suspicions and information allegedly received from a driver, who died before he could testify, could not take the place of proof.

“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,” the Court said.

The Court also said that while the duty to honour the marital relationship rested on the husband, the other woman had no corresponding legal obligation to thwart his advances.

“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,” the Court said.

The couple had married in November 2001.

In the suit filed in 2024, the wife alleged that the husband began an extramarital relationship with the other woman after a trip to the United States in 2009 and eventually abandoned the matrimonial home in January 2013.

She further claimed that her husband and the other woman contracted a bigamous marriage in 2015 and had a daughter in September 2016.

The suit said that the other woman knew that he was married but intentionally “stole” his affection and destroyed their matrimonial life. She claimed that this caused her mental trauma, financial difficulties and loss of companionship.

The suit initially sought ₹1 crore in damages. The claim was subsequently reduced to ₹50 lakh. The husband was made a pro forma defendant, with no relief sought against him.

The claim was based on the common law tort of alienation of affection, also known as a “heart-balm” action. It allows a spouse to seek damages from a third party who intentionally interferes with a marriage and draws the other spouse away.

The Court noted that the tort of alienation of affection has not been enacted into law in India. However, it was judicially acknowledged by the Supreme Court in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat.

For such a claim to succeed, the claimant must prove that genuine marital affection existed before the third party’s alleged interference, that the affection was destroyed and that the destruction was directly caused by the third party’s intentional or malicious conduct, the Court explained.

The Court said that mere existence of an extramarital relationship was not decisive and that a person cannot be held liable merely for becoming a passive object of another person’s affection.

In the present case, the Court found that the wife failed to prove that she and her husband shared a loving and affectionate relationship before the other woman allegedly entered their lives.

During her cross-examination, the wife admitted that there had been instances of physical, emotional and mental abuse in the marriage. She also stated that her husband had denied her physical intimacy for most of the marriage after the first two or three years.

It, thus, declined to grant her any relief.

However, the Court rejected the defendants’ argument that the suit was time-barred. It held that alienation of affection was a continuing wrong under Section 22 of the Limitation Act and that a fresh limitation period begins at every moment of the alleged interference.