Can a Wife Sue Her Husband's Paramour for Damages? What a Delhi Court Decided
A Delhi court dismissed a woman's INR 50 lakh damages suit against her husband's alleged partner. The judge ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove that the third party actively caused the marriage to break down. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish a loving relationship prior to the third party's entry.
A Delhi court has dismissed a woman's civil suit seeking INR 50 lakh in damages from her husband's alleged extra-marital partner for “stealing” his affection. District Judge Atul Ahlawat of the Saket Courts ruled that the wife failed to prove that the other woman had actively induced or encouraged the breakdown of their marriage.
Background of the Case
The couple was married in November 2001, reports Bar and Bench. In the suit filed in 2024, the wife alleged that her husband began an extramarital relationship with the defendant after a trip to the United States in 2009, eventually abandoning the matrimonial home in January 2013. Consensual S*x Can’t Be Criminalised Merely Over Marriage Promise: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Rape Case.
She further claimed that her husband and the other woman contracted a bigamous marriage in 2015 and had a daughter in September 2016. According to the suit, the defendant was aware that he was married but intentionally "stole" his affection, causing mental trauma, financial difficulties, and loss of companionship. The suit initially sought INR 1 crore in damages before being reduced to INR 50 lakh, with the husband named as a pro forma defendant against whom no relief was claimed.
Court Observations and Legal Principles
The lawsuit was based on the common law tort of alienation of affection, also known as a “heart-balm” action, which permits a spouse to seek damages from a third party who intentionally interferes with a marriage. While noting that the tort has been judicially acknowledged by the Supreme Court in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, the trial court emphasised that it has not been formally enacted into law in India. The judge noted that a claimant must prove genuine prior marital affection, its destruction, and direct causation by the third party's malicious conduct.
The Court found no direct evidence that the defendant induced the husband to leave. It noted: “Merely because two consenting adults had entered into a consensual s*xual 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 also observed that while the duty to honour a marital relationship rests upon the spouse, the third party has no corresponding legal obligation to reject advances. Goa Court Discharges Man Accused of Forcible S*x With Wife, Says Indian Law Does Not Recognise Marital Rape.
As the judge stated: “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.” Furthermore, the Court noted that during cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted to instances of physical, emotional, and mental abuse in her marriage, and stated that her husband had denied her physical intimacy for most of the marriage following the first few years. Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish a loving relationship prior to the third party's entry, though it rejected the defendants' argument that the suit was time-barred.
(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Aug 26, 2026 12:35 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).
