Recognition of Alienation of Affection

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav of the Delhi High Court in Shelly Mahajan v. Ms Bhanushree Bahl & Anr. (2025) allowed the institution of a civil suit seeking damages for the tort of Alienation of Affection, marking the first judicial recognition of this Anglo-American common law concept as a maintainable civil action in India. 

What was the Background of Shelly Mahajan v. Ms Bhanushree Bahl & Anr. (2025) Case? 

• The plaintiff Shelly Mahajan married defendant no.2 on March 18, 2012, and the couple was blessed with twin children in 2018. 
• The plaintiff joined the family business as Lab Director in 2019, while defendant no.2 continued to be actively engaged in both the family enterprise and his independent venture. 
• In 2021, defendant no.1 (Bhanushree Bahl) joined the said venture as an Analyst, allegedly aware of the subsisting marriage between the plaintiff and defendant no.2. 
• Defendant no.1 allegedly developed a close and personal relationship with defendant no.2, frequently visiting the marital home, accompanying him on work trips, and gradually becoming his exclusive travel companion. 
• The matters escalated in March 2023, when the plaintiff allegedly overheard intimate remarks exchanged between the defendants and later discovered letters on defendant no.2's laptop, confirming the extramarital relationship. 
• Upon confrontation, defendant no.1 allegedly categorically refused to end the relationship, and defendant no.2 thereafter began openly appearing with defendant no.1 at social gatherings, allegedly humiliating the plaintiff at public functions. 
• Defendant no.2 filed for divorce, service of which was affected on the plaintiff on April 4, 2025. 
• The plaintiff instituted the present proceedings seeking damages for the tort of Alienation of Affection (AoA). 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court noted that Indian legislation does not expressly recognize the tort of Alienation of Affection, which is fundamentally derived from Anglo-American Common Law and belongs to the category of "heart-balm" torts. 
• Justice Kaurav observed that the Supreme Court in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat (2013) had recognized that "Alienation of affection by a stranger, if proved, is an intentional tort i.e. interference in the marital relationship with intent to alienate one spouse from the other." 
• The Court emphasized that the Supreme Court in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) had affirmed that this concept, constitutes an intentional tort in principle, noting that marriage and family are social institutions of vital importance. 
• The Court clarified that no reported civil case had been brought seeking enforcement of damages for the tort of AoA, as the concept remained judicially acknowledged but not formally adopted. 
• The Court rejected the defendants' contention that the suit was barred under Section 9 CPC read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, holding that such a claim is quintessentially within the purview of ordinary Civil Courts. 
• Justice Kaurav emphasized that while personal autonomy must be protected, actions carry effects and consequences that may extend beyond the individual actor to those closely connected with them, including spouses and children. 
• The Court directed issuance of summons to the defendants, allowing the first civil suit for Alienation of Affection to proceed in India. 

What is Alienation of Affection? 

About: 

• Alienation of Affection is a tort derived from Anglo-American Common Law that belongs to the category of "heart-balm" torts. 
• 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. 
• Heart-balm actions historically included seduction, criminal conversation, alienation of affection, and breach of promise to marry. 
• Among these, criminal conversation and alienation of affection were treated as marital torts, initially available only to husbands but later extended to spouses irrespective of gender. 
• As of 2016, the tort survives in only a handful of U.S. jurisdictions (notably Hawaii, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah). 

Elements of Alienation of Affection: 

• The plaintiff must establish intentional and wrongful conduct by the defendant directed at alienating the marital relationship. 
• There must be clear causation linking that conduct to a legally cognizable injury to the plaintiff. 
• The loss claimed must be susceptible of rational assessment for damages. 
• Mere association or acquaintance with a spouse is insufficient - there must be clear evidence of active and wrongful interference. 
• Passive involvement, where the married person independently develops affection for another without any act attributable to the third party, is not actionable. 
• The Supreme Court emphasized strict evidentiary standards requiring acts that are intentional and calculated to entice one spouse away from the other. 

Legal Status in India: 

• At present, Indian legislation does not expressly recognize AoA. The recognition remains judge-made, derived from common law principles. 
• In contrast, several U.S. states have codified or retained AoA as a cause of action, while others have abolished it as outdated. India now stands at a crossroads — whether to formally recognize such torts or leave them to judicial discretion.