The Hindu: Published on 7th Oct 2025.
Why in News?
The Delhi High Court, in a landmark case — Shelly Mahajan vs. M.S. Bhanushree Bahl & Anr — allowed a wife to file a civil suit for damages against her husband’s alleged affair partner for “Alienation of Affection (AoA)”, i.e., intentional interference in her marriage.
This marks the first time in India that a High Court has permitted such a claim, reviving an old Anglo-American legal doctrine long abolished in many countries.
It raises key questions on whether Indian civil courts can impose liability on a third party for causing a marital breakdown.
Background:
“Alienation of Affection” originated in old English and American common law. It allowed a spouse to sue another person who had maliciously interfered in their marriage and caused emotional loss or separation.
While such laws were once common, most countries — including the U.K. and majority of U.S. States — have abolished them as being outdated or incompatible with modern ideas of marriage and autonomy.
In India, although AoA is neither codified nor prohibited, the Supreme Court has hinted in earlier rulings that such interference, if proven, can amount to an “intentional tort” — a civil wrong.
Key Issues:
Can a third party (lover) be legally liable for breaking a marriage?
Does this go against the Supreme Court’s Joseph Shine judgment which decriminalised adultery?
Should the case be heard in family court or civil court?
What constitutes “intentional interference”?
Could this lead to misuse or privacy violations?
Legal Dimensions:
(a) Concept of Alienation of Affection (AoA)
A “heart-balm” tort, meaning compensation for emotional or relational loss.
Based on the principle that marriage confers rights of companionship, affection, and consortium.
To prove AoA, a spouse must show:
Genuine love existed in the marriage,
That affection was lost, and
A third party’s malicious act caused that loss.
Indian Legal Stand:
Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (2018): Supreme Court decriminalised adultery — it is no longer a crime, but remains a civil wrong and ground for divorce.
Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat (2013): The SC recognised that “alienation of affection by a stranger, if proved, is an intentional tort.”
Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma: The Court said even children might have a cause of action for alienation.
However, before Shelly Mahajan, no Indian court had awarded damages under AoA.
U.S. Context:
Only a few U.S. States (Hawaii, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, Utah) still allow AoA suits.
Most others abolished them, citing privacy, autonomy, and potential misuse.
To succeed, plaintiffs must strictly prove genuine affection, its loss, and malicious interference.
What Delhi High Court Held:
Adultery is decriminalised, but that does not mean immunity from civil action.
Civil courts, not family courts, have jurisdiction since the claim is against a third party, not a spouse.
The Court outlined a three-part test:
(i) Intentional and wrongful conduct by the third party,
(ii) Causal link between that conduct and marital breakdown,
(iii) Loss suffered by the aggrieved spouse is measurable.
The Court clarified that civil suits like AoA do not contradict Joseph Shine, as that judgment dealt with criminal law, not civil remedies.
Constitutional & Ethical Dimensions:
Raises the question: Should law protect marriage or privacy?
Some see it as reviving patriarchal ideas of “ownership” over a spouse.
Others view it as giving civil justice to wronged spouses.
Balancing personal autonomy with marital sanctity becomes the central debate.
Implications:
Precedent: Opens the door for civil damages in marriage-related cases.
Judicial Expansion: Extends tort law into family relationships.
Privacy Risks: Potential intrusion into personal and intimate matters.
Gender Neutrality: Either spouse can bring an AoA claim — a fairer approach.
Misuse Concerns: May lead to false or revenge-driven cases.
Conclusion:
- The Delhi High Court’s decision in Shelly Mahajan marks a historic but contentious development in Indian civil law.
- It recognises civil liability for third-party interference in marriage without re-criminalising adultery.
- While it provides a new legal remedy for emotional harm, courts must apply it carefully to prevent misuse and respect privacy rights.
- This case may shape future legal debates on how Indian law balances marital rights with individual freedom.
