Wife Sought ₹50 Lakh From Husband’s Lover For Breaking Her Marriage —Delhi Court Rejects Claim, Says Marriage Was Already In A “Rough Phase”

Is a husband’s extramarital relationship, and even having a child with another woman, enough to make that woman pay ₹50 lakh to the wife? A Delhi Court said the wife still had to prove that the third party actually caused the breakdown of her marriage.

NEW DELHI: A Delhi Court has dismissed a wife’s suit seeking ₹50 lakh damages from her husband’s alleged extramarital partner for allegedly “stealing” his affection and destroying their marriage.

District Judge Atul Ahlawat, District Judge-03, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, held that merely proving an extramarital relationship was not enough to establish the tort of Alienation of Affection (AoA). The wife first had to prove that genuine love and affection existed in her marriage before the alleged interference and that the third party’s intentional conduct destroyed it.

The couple married on November 30, 2001. The wife alleged that her husband developed an extramarital relationship with the other woman after a US trip in 2009. She claimed that despite knowing he was married, the woman intentionally interfered in their marriage and induced him to leave.

The husband eventually left the matrimonial home in January 2013. The wife further alleged that her husband and the other woman entered into a bigamous marriage in 2015 and had a daughter in September 2016.

The wife relied on photographs, phone and travel records, bank documents, hotel bills, an alleged wedding photograph and the child’s birth certificate. She had originally claimed ₹1 crore as damages, which was later reduced to ₹50 lakh. Her husband was also made a pro forma defendant, but she sought no monetary relief against him.

The claim rested on the common-law tort of Alienation of Affection, also known as a “Heart-Balm” action. The Court noted that India has no statutory provision creating this remedy, though the concept has received judicial recognition.

Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, the Court noted that liability requires active participation, initiation or encouragement by the third party.

The Court said:

“For the tort of AoA, the extra-marital sexual intercourse is not a sine qua non, since the action is based for all improper intrusions or assaults on the marital relationship by the third party, whether or not associated with extra-marital sexual intercourse, or no,”

However, the wife’s own evidence became important in examining whether a loving marital relationship existed that could have been alienated.

During cross-examination, she admitted that her marriage was already going through a “rough phase” when the alleged relationship started. She also stated that her husband had been considering leaving the marriage as early as 2010 and that she had consulted a marriage counsellor between 2003 and 2009.

The Court further noted her statement that her husband had denied physical intimacy for most of their marriage after the first two or three years.

The Court observed:

“Therefore, as per her (plaintiff) own testimony, even prior to defendant no. 1 (third party) coming into the life of the defendant no. 2 (husband), the marital relations between her and the defendant no. 2 had hit rock bottom, especially when she had also deposed in her cross-examination that the defendant no. 2 would go through phases of extreme anger and therefore, would become highly unpredictable and uncontrollable at times,”

The Court consequently found that even on the preponderance of probabilities, the wife failed to establish that genuine love and affection existed between her and her husband before the third party allegedly entered their lives.

Once this basic requirement was not established, the Court said there was no need to decide whether the alleged destruction of affection resulted from intentional, wrongful or malicious conduct of the other woman.

Importantly, the Court also found no cogent evidence showing that the third party actively caused the husband to withdraw from the marriage. The judgment placed the husband’s own choice and conduct within the evidentiary assessment instead of automatically converting an alleged affair into monetary liability against another person.

The Court finally held:

“Lastly, merely because two consenting adults had entered into a consensual sexual 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,”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the wife’s ₹50 lakh damages claim, holding that the essential ingredients of Alienation of Affection had not been proved.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A wife sought ₹50 lakh over her husband’s alleged affair, but the Court rejected the claim.
• Even an affair and a child were not enough without proof of legal liability.
• Her own testimony showed the marriage was already in a “rough phase” before the alleged interference.
• The Court made it clear: blame cannot replace proof that a loving marriage was intentionally destroyed.
• For men, the lesson is simple: a failed marriage cannot become an endless financial claim built only on allegations.