New Delhi, September 15, 2025 – In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has held that a civil suit seeking damages for alienation of affection (AoA), commonly known as interference in a marital relationship by a third party, is maintainable under Indian law.
The case was filed by Shelly Mahajan against Ms. Bhanushree Bahl (alleged partner of her husband) and her husband (defendant no.2). Mahajan claimed that Bahl’s conduct intentionally disrupted her marriage, leading to the withdrawal of her husband’s affection and companionship. She sought damages for the emotional and relational harm suffered.
The Background
- Mahajan married her husband in 2012, and the couple had twin children in 2018.
- In 2021, Bahl joined her husband’s business venture, after which she allegedly developed a close relationship with him.
- By 2023, Mahajan discovered evidence of an extramarital affair. Soon after, her husband filed for divorce.
- Mahajan’s lawsuit does not seek matrimonial relief against her husband, but rather damages from Bahl for allegedly interfering with her marital relationship.
Key Legal Arguments
- Defendants’ stand: The husband and Bahl argued that the case was not maintainable, as family disputes fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts. They also cited Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019), where adultery was decriminalised, stressing that adults enjoy autonomy in personal relationships.
- Plaintiff’s stand: Mahajan’s counsel argued that Indian law recognises AoA as an intentional tort, even if it is rarely enforced. She claimed that wrongful interference by a third party can result in compensable harm.
The Court’s Findings
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled:
- AoA as a civil tort: While Indian statutes do not explicitly codify AoA, the Supreme Court in earlier rulings (Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal and Indra Sarma) had recognised it in principle. The Delhi High Court held that interference in a marriage by a third party may give rise to a civil claim for damages.
- Jurisdiction lies with Civil Courts: The Court clarified that such a claim is not a matrimonial dispute, but an independent tort action. Therefore, Civil Courts and not Family Courts have jurisdiction.
- Autonomy vs. consequences: The Court noted that while personal autonomy must be respected, choices made within a marriage carry legal and civil consequences. A spouse is entitled to companionship, intimacy, and consortium, and wrongful third-party interference may legally harm those rights.
- Proceedings to continue: The Court did not rule on the merits of the case but found that Mahajan’s plaint discloses a valid civil cause of action. Summons were issued, and the case will proceed to trial.
Why This Matters
This ruling could have far-reaching implications. Though Indian courts have acknowledged AoA in theory, this is among the first instances where a High Court has allowed such a claim to proceed as a civil suit for damages.
Globally, AoA claims are rare. Many countries, including the UK and Canada, have abolished them altogether. In the United States, they survive in only a few states like North Carolina and Mississippi.
In India, however, this judgment opens the door for spouses to seek civil remedies against third parties alleged to have interfered in their marriage — a potential shift in the legal landscape surrounding relationships, marriage, and personal autonomy.