This decision marks an important shift in Indian tort jurisprudence by affirming the maintainability of civil claims for alienation of affection, a cause of action long recognised in theory but never squarely tested in civil proceedings. While the Court has cautiously limited its ruling to the threshold of maintainability, the recognition that personal autonomy in intimate matters does not exclude civil liability for wrongful third-party interference could pave the way for an expansion of tort remedies into the marital sphere. However, concerns remain over evidentiary burdens, the quantification of damages, and the potential for such claims to be misused as collateral litigation in matrimonial disputes. The case thus opens a new, albeit contested, frontier in the intersection of family law and tort law in India.
Case Note
Shelly Mahajan v. Ms. Bhanushree Bahl & Anr.
CS(OS) 602/2025, Delhi High Court, decided on 15 September 2025 (per Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.)
Headnote
Civil Law – Alienation of Affection – Maintainability of Civil Action – Family Court Jurisdiction – Personal Autonomy – Tortious Interference.
A civil suit seeking damages for alienation of affection (AoA) against a third party is maintainable before a Civil Court. Though not expressly codified in Indian law, AoA has been judicially acknowledged as an intentional tort where a third party wrongfully interferes with the marital consortium of spouses. Such a claim is distinct from matrimonial proceedings and does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Personal autonomy of spouses is preserved; however, choices within a marriage carry civil consequences. At the threshold stage, the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action in tort, warranting issuance of summons.
Facts
The plaintiff married defendant no.2 in 2012, and the couple had twin children in 2018. Defendant no.1 joined defendant no.2’s business in 2021, allegedly developing an intimate relationship with him despite knowledge of his subsisting marriage. The plaintiff discovered evidence of the affair in 2023, after which defendant no.2 filed for divorce. The plaintiff instituted a civil suit seeking damages against defendant no.1 for wrongful interference in her marital relationship, claiming loss of affection and companionship.
Issues
-
Whether Indian law recognises a civil action for alienation of affection.
-
Whether such a suit falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
-
Whether the plea of personal autonomy of spouses bars a claim against a third party for wrongful interference.
Held
-
Indian jurisprudence, drawing from Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal and Indra Sarma, acknowledges AoA as an intentional tort in principle, though rarely enforced.
-
The claim is civil in nature and directed against a third party; it is distinct from matrimonial causes such as divorce, maintenance, or custody, which are within the Family Court’s exclusive domain.
-
The Civil Court has jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC. Family Court jurisdiction is not attracted merely because the dispute arises in a marital context.
-
While spouses retain personal autonomy, third-party interference that intentionally disrupts marital consortium can give rise to civil liability.
-
The plaint discloses a prima facie cause of action; summons were issued.
Reasoning
The Court emphasised that:
-
AoA belongs to the category of “heart-balm torts,” historically recognised in Anglo-American common law but largely abolished in England and Canada, surviving only in limited US states.
-
In India, though no statute codifies AoA, the Supreme Court in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal and Indra Sarma accepted it as an intentional tort in theory.
-
Family Court jurisdiction under Section 7 must be construed narrowly (Geeta Anand v. Tanya Arjun), confined to matrimonial causes. Civil Courts retain jurisdiction where the claim is based on an independent civil wrong, notwithstanding the marital context.
-
Personal liberty, as recognised in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, precludes criminalisation of adultery, but does not immunise third parties from civil consequences of wrongful conduct.
Endnotes / Case Law References
-
Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 48.
-
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755.
-
Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39.
-
Geeta Anand v. Tanya Arjun, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2327.
-
Tanvi Chaturvedi v. Smita Shrivastava, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5712.
-
Leby Issac v. Leena M. Ninan, 2005 SCC OnLine Ker 345.
-
S.A. Margaret Angel v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15407 of 2016 (Madras HC, 05.10.2018).
-
Devendra Kumar v. Manita, 2017 SCC OnLine Utt 866.
-
V. Karuppusami v. Indira, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 29805.
-
Kungl v. Schiefer, [1962] S.C.R. 443 (Canada).
Download PDF of Shelly Mahajan v. Ms. Bhanushree Bahl Shelly Mahajan v. Ms. Bhanushree Bahl (Delhi High Court)