Marriage is often described as a bond built on trust, companionship, and love. But what happens when a third person comes into the picture and disrupts that bond? Can the law step in and hold such a person responsible? Recently, the Delhi High Court addressed this question in a case involving the rarely discussed concept of Alienation of Affection (AoA).
The Court’s order did not declare anyone guilty or grant damages, but it made an important point: a spouse has the right to bring a civil claim against a third party who deliberately interferes in their marriage. This case has now opened up a fresh conversation on whether India should legally recognize emotional and relational harms caused by outsiders in a marriage.
What is Alienation of Affection?
Alienation of Affection is a civil wrong, also called a tort, where one spouse claims that a third person has intentionally caused the other spouse to lose affection, love, or companionship. It is not about divorce between the couple but about holding the outsider accountable.
This idea has its roots in Anglo-American law. In the past, such claims were common in the United States and Europe, where they were known as “heart-balm” actions. However, most countries, including England and Canada, have abolished them, calling them outdated. In the US, only a few states like North Carolina and Mississippi still allow them.
In India, there is no law that specifically talks about Alienation of Affection. But the Supreme Court has, in some cases, acknowledged that it could exist as a tort if proven. The tricky part, however, is evidence—simply having a friendship or relationship outside marriage is not enough. The person suing must show that the third party actively and intentionally interfered in the marriage.
The Delhi Case: What Happened?
The case before the Delhi High Court was between a woman (the plaintiff) and another woman (the defendant), whom she accused of having an affair with her husband.
The plaintiff married her husband in 2012, and the couple had twin children in 2018. According to her, things changed when the defendant started working with her husband in 2021. She claimed that the defendant developed a close relationship with him, often traveling with him and even visiting their marital home.
By 2023, the plaintiff said she discovered letters, messages, and other evidence that her husband was involved with the defendant. Despite family interventions, the relationship allegedly grew stronger. In 2025, her husband filed for divorce.
At this point, the plaintiff filed a separate civil suit, not against her husband but against the other woman. She claimed that the defendant’s intentional actions caused her to lose her husband’s affection and disrupted her family life. She demanded damages for emotional pain and humiliation.
The Defendant’s Stand
The defendant argued that the case should be dismissed. Her main points were:
- Jurisdiction – According to her, all marriage-related cases should go to the Family Court, not a Civil Court.
- Personal Freedom – She argued that adults are free to form relationships, and the law cannot force affection or loyalty.
- No Legal Duty – She pointed out that no law requires a third party to protect someone else’s marriage.
She also warned that recognizing such claims could lead to endless harassment of people accused of “breaking marriages,” even when the marriage itself may already have problems.
The Court’s View
The Delhi High Court didn’t give a final verdict on whether the defendant was guilty or not. Instead, it focused on whether such a case could even be heard in Civil Court.
The Court made three important observations:
- Civil Courts can hear such cases – While Family Courts handle disputes between spouses, a claim against a third party is different and falls under Civil Courts.
- Alienation of Affection is not alien to Indian law – Past Supreme Court cases like Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma have recognized that wrongful interference in a marriage could, in principle, give rise to a claim.
- Burden of proof is high – The plaintiff will need to prove that the third party intentionally interfered in the marriage. Mere association or friendship won’t be enough.
For now, the Court has issued summons to the defendants, allowing the trial to move forward.
Why This Matters
This ruling is significant for several reasons:
- Recognition of Emotional Harm – Indian law traditionally focuses on physical injury or financial loss. This case opens the door to recognizing emotional and relational harms as legally important.
- Balancing Freedom and Responsibility – While individuals have the freedom to form relationships, the law may hold them responsible if their choices deliberately harm another person’s marriage.
- Social Impact – With rising cases of marital disputes, this judgment could influence how Indian society views the role of outsiders in broken marriages.
At the same time, the case raises difficult questions. Can courts really measure love and companionship in money? Could such claims be misused to harass people? And should the law step into matters of the heart at all?
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s order on Alienation of Affection is not a final ruling, but it has started an important conversation in Indian law. By allowing the case to proceed, the Court has recognized that marriages are not just private arrangements but also legal relationships with protectable interests.
Whether this claim succeeds or not, the case highlights the evolving nature of Indian family law and tort law. It shows that the law is beginning to take emotional and relational harms more seriously, even if it remains cautious about granting remedies.
For now, one thing is clear: the debate on Alienation of Affection in India has only just begun, and this judgment could shape how courts handle similar cases in the future.
Back to Blog