The Delhi High Court rules that while adultery is decriminalised, spouses can still sue their partner’s lover for damages, highlighting civil consequences for marital disruption and loss of companionship.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court recently made a landmark observation regarding civil remedies for marital disruption, holding that a spouse can sue her partner’s paramour and claim monetary compensation for loss of affection and companionship. While adultery is no longer a criminal offense in India, this judgment underscores that civil consequences remain very much enforceable.
In its order dated September 15, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav emphasized that
“Individuals may hold certain expectations from the sanctity of marriage. While the exercise of personal liberty is not criminal and therefore cannot attract penal sanction by the State… such conduct may nevertheless give rise to civil consequences.”
The Court clarified that although the Supreme Court’s decision in Joseph Shine decriminalized adultery, it did not give anyone the license to engage in intimate relationships outside marriage free from civil liability.
Background of the Dispute
The case involves a wife married in 2012, who gave birth to twins in 2018. Problems arose in 2021 when the defendant joined her husband’s business and allegedly developed a close relationship with him. Despite interventions, the affair continued, culminating in the husband filing for divorce.
The wife filed a civil suit seeking damages for emotional harm and loss of companionship, invoking the tort of alienation of affection (AoA), a rarely applied “heart-balm” claim rooted in Anglo-American common law.
Also Read: What DY Chandrachud Said After CJI Gavai’s Subtle Dig Over Official Residence Row
The defendants argued that the matter should be heard in a family court under the Family Courts Act, not the High Court. However, the Delhi High Court ruled that since the claim for damages is based on the alleged acts of the paramour and not the spouse, it falls under civil tort law, and thus, civil courts have jurisdiction.
Justice Kaurav noted,
“Unless the defendants show a statutory bar, a civil action based on tort cannot be rejected outright.”
The Court also clarified that whether the paramour’s actions caused the marital breakdown would be decided at trial.
Appearance:
Plaintiff: Advocates Malavika Rajkotia, Purva Dua and Mayank Grover
Defendant-woman: Advocate KC Jain
Husband: Advocates Prabhjit Jauhar, Tulika Bhatnagar and Sehaj Kataria
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Adultery
