District Judge Atul Ahlawat of the Saket Courts dismissed a suit filed by a wife seeking Rs 50 lakh in damages from her husband’s alleged paramour on account of the tort of alienation of affection. The court held that mere proof of an extramarital affair resulting in the birth of a child is insufficient to sustain such a claim under the common law tort.
The judge emphasised that to succeed in an action for alienation of affection, the plaintiff must first prove the existence of genuine love and affection in the marriage prior to the alleged interference by the third party. Only thereafter can it be established whether the third party’s intentional and wrongful conduct caused the destruction of that affection.
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v State of Gujarat, which held that liability for alienation of affection requires active participation, initiation or encouragement by the third party. It further noted that extra-marital sexual intercourse is not a sine qua non for the tort, as the action is based on all improper intrusions on the marital relationship by a third party, whether or not associated with such intercourse.
The wife had alleged that her husband and the third party were involved in an extramarital relationship from around 2009, claiming that the third party, despite knowing he was married, induced him to leave the matrimonial relationship. She supported her claim with photographs, phone and travel records, bank statements, hotel bills, an alleged photograph of the husband’s second marriage to the third party, and the birth certificate of their child.
However, the court found significant deficiencies in the evidence. During cross-examination, the wife herself deposed that her marriage was already undergoing a 'rough phase' when the alleged relationship began. She also stated that her husband had been planning to exit the marriage as early as 2010 and that she had consulted a marriage counsellor between 2003 and 2009.
The judge observed that these admissions indicated that the marital relationship was not sound even before the third party allegedly entered their lives. Furthermore, the wife admitted that her husband had denied her physical intimacy for most of the period after the first two or three years of their marriage.
The court concluded that, based on the wife’s own testimony, the marital relationship had 'hit rock bottom' prior to the third party’s involvement, particularly given her deposition that the husband would undergo phases of extreme anger and become highly unpredictable and uncontrollable at times.
Therefore, even on a preponderance of probabilities, the wife failed to establish that there was any genuine love and affection in her marriage before the third party came into their lives. Since the first limb of the tort—proof of pre-existing marital affection—could not be satisfied, the court held that the question of whether the destruction of affection was due to the third party’s intentional, wrongful or malicious conduct did not arise for consideration.
The court further held that the mere fact that two consenting adults entered into a consensual sexual relationship outside marriage, which resulted in the birth of a child, does not in itself satisfy the ingredients of the tort of alienation of affection. It stressed that such a relationship, by itself, does not make the third party liable for damages under this head.
The suit was accordingly dismissed in its entirety, with no costs awarded. The judgment underscores the stringent burden of proof required in actions for alienation of affection, particularly the necessity to establish the antecedent existence of a loving and affectionate marital bond.