Heart-Balm Tort: Delhi High Court Directs Registration Of Wife's Suit Seeking Damages From Another Woman Over Extra-Marital Relationship With Husband

The suit, before the High Court, was instituted seeking damages on the premise that the plaintiff wife was entitled to the affection and companionship of her husband and such affection was allegedly withdrawn on account of the active and mala fide conduct of the first defendant. While seeking damages for Alienation of Affection (AoA), the plaintiff wife also alleged that the first defendant intentionally interfered with her marital relationship.

The Single Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav stated, “It is seen that, as on date, Indian legislation does not expressly recognise the tort of AoA. The concept is one fundamentally derived from Anglo-American Common Law and belongs to the category of so-called “heart-balm” torts. In the common law tradition, a heart-balm action is a civil claim, whereby a party seeks monetary compensation for the termination or disruption of a romantic or marital relationship.”

“In that sense, the cause of action is independent of the marital tie and is premised on the tortious interference of a third party with the plaintiff’s legally recognised relationship. Consequently, the Court is satisfied that the instant proceedings do not fall within the ambit of Section 7(1)(d) of the Family Courts Act, which is confined to suits or proceedings “arising out of a marital relationship,”. In fact, the Court is of the considered opinion that the instant lis is wholly regarding civil rights related to tort, and the Civil Court retains the jurisdiction”, it further added.

Advocate Malavika Rajkotia represented the Petitioner, while Advocate K.C. Jain represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The couple got married in 2012 and was blessed with twin children. The plaintiff joined the family business as a Lab Director while the husband continued to be actively engaged in both the family enterprise and also in his independent venture. In 2021, the first defendant joined the said venture as an Analyst. Stated to be aware of the subsisting marriage, the first defendant was alleged to have developed a close and personal relationship with the defendant husband. The matters escalated when the plaintiff allegedly overheard intimate remarks exchanged between the defendants and later discovered letters confirming the extramarital relationship.

Upon confrontation, the first defendant was alleged to have categorically refused to end the said relationship, and the second defendant thereafter purportedly began openly appearing with the first defendant at social gatherings and humiliating the plaintiff at public functions. The defendant husband had filed for divorce, service of which was effected on the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff instituted the present proceedings seeking damages for the tort of AoA.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the Indian legislation does not expressly recognise the tort of AoA and in contrast to India, several U.S. States have long recognized the tort of AoA. Referring to the provisions of the CPC, the Bench explained that unless the defendants could show that the suit is expressly barred under Section 9 of the CPC or any other provision of the CPC or by any other codified law specifically barring the institution of such suit, an action for damages based on an alleged tort cannot be outrightly rejected.

“...a civil action for wrongful interference is analytically sustainable, so long as the plaintiff can, on proper pleading and proof, establish (i) intentional and wrongful conduct by the defendant directed at alienating the marital relationship of the plaintiff, (ii) clear causation linking that conduct to a legally cognisable injury to the plaintiff, and (iii) that the loss claimed is susceptible of rational assessment”, it mentioned.

As per the Bench, when one spouse claims to have suffered legal injury due to the disruption of the marital relationship, the law, under tort, recognises that compensation may be sought from those alleged to have contributed to the breach of that sanctified bond.

Coming to the facts of the case, it was noticed by the Bench that the present action, was directed not against the spouse but against a third party, for her alleged conduct of engaging in an intimate relationship with the plaintiff’s husband and thereby causing injury and loss of affection, which the plaintiff was entitled to. “The claim for damages is founded on the alleged acts of defendant no.1 alone, and not on any relief arising from or within the matrimonial relationship between the plaintiff and defendant no.2”, it noted while also adding, “In fact, the Court is of the considered opinion that the instant lis is wholly regarding civil rights related to tort, and the Civil Court retains the jurisdiction.”

Thus, holding that the plaint prima facie disclosed a civil cause of action for tortious interference, i.e., AoA, which is distinct from the remedies falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Courts, the Bench ordered, “Summons are accordingly directed to be issued to the defendants, with liberty reserved to them to invoke the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, should they seek rejection of the plaint at the appropriate stage.” The Bench thus directed the plaint to be registered as a civil suit.

Cause Title: A v. B (Case No.: CS(OS) 602/2025 & I.A. 21712-21714/2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Malavika Rajkotia, Purva Dua, Mayank Grover

Respondent: Advocates K.C. Jain, Prabhjit Jauhar, Tulika Bhatnagar, Sehaj Kataria

Click here to read/download Order