SHELLY MAHAJAN v. MS BHANUSHREE BAHL | Delhi High Court Judgment on Alienation of Affection
Can a spouse sue their partner’s lover in India? Can the law hold a third party liable for intentionally breaking a marriage apart? The Delhi High Court has recently delivered a significant ruling in Shelly Mahajan v. Ms. Bhanushree Bahl that directly addresses these questions. This case introduces the concept of Alienation of Affection into Indian legal discourse in a bold and unprecedented manner.
This detailed explanation covers the facts of the case, the reasoning of the Court, the references to Anglo-American common law, the connection with existing Indian matrimonial jurisprudence, and the implications for future cases.
Understanding Alienation of Affection
The core issue in this case is whether a spouse can maintain a civil suit for damages against their partner’s lover for deliberately interfering in the marriage. The Court discussed the tort of Alienation of Affection, a legal concept historically recognized in Anglo-American common law as part of “heart-balm” torts.
According to the Delhi High Court, Alienation of Affection means:
A spouse possesses a protectable legal interest in the marital consortium — which includes companionship, intimacy, and affection.
A third party has a corresponding legal duty not to intentionally and wrongfully interfere with that relationship.
If such interference is proven, the aggrieved spouse may seek damages through a civil suit.
This represents a shift in Indian law, which has historically limited remedies in marital disputes to matrimonial laws under the Hindu Marriage Act, Special Marriage Act, and related statutes.
The Delhi High Court’s Findings
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled that a civil action for wrongful interference in marriage is maintainable, provided the plaintiff can establish:
Intentional and wrongful conduct by the defendant directed at alienating the marital relationship.
Causation linking that conduct to a legally cognisable injury.
Loss that is measurable and rationally assessable.
The Court emphasized that while a spouse is free to exercise personal liberty and voluntarily withdraw affection, any third-party coercion or inducement that leads to alienation can attract civil liability.
Facts of the Case
The suit was filed by a married woman who alleged that:
She was entitled to the affection and companionship of her husband.
That affection was withdrawn due to the active and mala fide interference of the husband’s lover.
Her husband began openly appearing with the other woman at social gatherings, humiliating her publicly.
Ultimately, the husband filed for divorce, breaking down the marriage.
The plaintiff sought damages from her husband’s lover, arguing that the relationship caused an alienation of affection. The husband and his lover objected, arguing that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Family Court under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act.
Key Legal Arguments and Objections
Defendants’ Objection: They argued that the matter arose out of a marital relationship and could only be dealt with by the Family Court.
High Court’s Response: The Court clarified that the claim was not matrimonial in nature but was based on independent tortious conduct. Therefore, it fell within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court, not a Family Court.
The Court cited Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat (2013) 10 SCC 48, where the Supreme Court discussed the potential for recognizing such actions in principle.
Importantly, the Court also referred to Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), where adultery was decriminalized. The High Court clarified that while adultery is no longer a criminal offence, it can still have civil consequences.
Joseph Shine v. Union of India – Impact
In Joseph Shine, the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 IPC, which criminalized adultery. The rationale was that criminalizing consensual relationships violated the right to privacy and personal liberty.
However, the Delhi High Court in Shelly Mahajan v. Bhanushree Bahl emphasized:
Decriminalization does not mean a free license to interfere in marriages.
Civil consequences remain enforceable.
The liberty of one spouse to form relationships outside marriage does not erase the liability of third parties who deliberately interfere in marriages.
Family Court vs Civil Court
One of the central questions was whether such a claim should be filed before a Family Court or Civil Court. The Delhi High Court held:
Section 7 of the Family Courts Act deals with matrimonial disputes.
Alienation of Affection is a civil tort claim, not a matrimonial issue.
Therefore, such cases must be filed before a Civil Court.
Информация по комментариям в разработке