Wife sought ₹50 lakh saying another woman ‘stole’ her husband’s affection. Here’s what Delhi court said
The court also said that the responsibility to honour the marriage rested with the husband.
- Aug 26, 2026,
- Updated Aug 26, 2026 5:13 PM IST
A Delhi woman’s ₹50 lakh lawsuit against the woman allegedly involved with her husband has been dismissed, with a court ruling that she failed to prove that the other woman deliberately caused the breakdown of her marriage, according to a report by Bar and Bench.
District Judge Atul Ahlawat of Saket Courts, in an August 20 order, said there was no direct evidence to show that the woman had induced or encouraged the husband to leave his wife.
The court also said the wife’s suspicions and information allegedly received from a driver, who died before he could testify, could not replace proof.
“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,” the court said.
Don't Miss: Gujarat industrial land prices are unsustainable for manufacturing: Founder shares pain of setting up plant
The court also said that the responsibility to honour the marriage rested with the husband. The other woman, it said, had no legal duty to reject his advances.
“There was no corresponding duty upon her to thwart away any advances made by the defendant no. 2, since, the corresponding duty of conjugal relationship rested only on the defendant no. 2 and the defendant no. 1 cannot be saddled with such an obligation under the law,” the court said.
What the wife alleged
The couple married in November 2001. In her suit, filed in 2024, the wife alleged that her husband began a relationship with the other woman after a trip to the United States in 2009.
She claimed that he eventually left the matrimonial home in January 2013. She 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 alleged that the other woman knew her husband was already married but intentionally “stole” his affection and destroyed their married life. She claimed that the alleged interference caused her mental trauma, financial difficulties and loss of companionship.
The suit initially sought ₹1 crore in damages, but the claim was later reduced to ₹50 lakh. The husband was made a formal defendant, but the wife did not seek any relief against him.
What is alienation of affection?
The wife’s claim was based on the common law tort of alienation of affection, also known as a “heart-balm” action. It allows a spouse to seek damages from a third person who intentionally interferes with a marriage and causes the other spouse to leave.
The court noted that alienation of affection has not been specifically enacted as a law in India. However, it has been judicially acknowledged by the Supreme Court in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat.
For such a claim to succeed, the court said the claimant must prove that genuine affection existed between the couple before the alleged interference, that the affection was destroyed and that the third person’s intentional or malicious conduct directly caused that loss.
The court made it clear that the mere existence of an extra-marital relationship was not enough to establish such a claim. A person cannot be held liable simply for becoming the object of another person’s affection.
Wife’s testimony on marriage
The court also found that the wife had failed to prove that she and her husband shared a loving and affectionate relationship before the other woman allegedly entered their lives.
During cross-examination, the wife admitted that there had been instances of physical, emotional and mental abuse in the marriage. She also said that her husband had denied her physical intimacy for most of the marriage after the first two or three years.
Must Read: GIVA ad featuring Kriti Sanon withdrawn after backlash: ‘Hurting sentiments was never our intent’
The court, therefore, declined to grant her any relief.
However, it rejected the defendants’ argument that the suit was time-barred. The court held that alienation of affection was a continuing wrong under Section 22 of the Limitation Act.
A Delhi woman’s ₹50 lakh lawsuit against the woman allegedly involved with her husband has been dismissed, with a court ruling that she failed to prove that the other woman deliberately caused the breakdown of her marriage, according to a report by Bar and Bench.
District Judge Atul Ahlawat of Saket Courts, in an August 20 order, said there was no direct evidence to show that the woman had induced or encouraged the husband to leave his wife.
The court also said the wife’s suspicions and information allegedly received from a driver, who died before he could testify, could not replace proof.
“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,” the court said.
Don't Miss: Gujarat industrial land prices are unsustainable for manufacturing: Founder shares pain of setting up plant
The court also said that the responsibility to honour the marriage rested with the husband. The other woman, it said, had no legal duty to reject his advances.
“There was no corresponding duty upon her to thwart away any advances made by the defendant no. 2, since, the corresponding duty of conjugal relationship rested only on the defendant no. 2 and the defendant no. 1 cannot be saddled with such an obligation under the law,” the court said.
What the wife alleged
The couple married in November 2001. In her suit, filed in 2024, the wife alleged that her husband began a relationship with the other woman after a trip to the United States in 2009.
She claimed that he eventually left the matrimonial home in January 2013. She 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 alleged that the other woman knew her husband was already married but intentionally “stole” his affection and destroyed their married life. She claimed that the alleged interference caused her mental trauma, financial difficulties and loss of companionship.
The suit initially sought ₹1 crore in damages, but the claim was later reduced to ₹50 lakh. The husband was made a formal defendant, but the wife did not seek any relief against him.
What is alienation of affection?
The wife’s claim was based on the common law tort of alienation of affection, also known as a “heart-balm” action. It allows a spouse to seek damages from a third person who intentionally interferes with a marriage and causes the other spouse to leave.
The court noted that alienation of affection has not been specifically enacted as a law in India. However, it has been judicially acknowledged by the Supreme Court in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat.
For such a claim to succeed, the court said the claimant must prove that genuine affection existed between the couple before the alleged interference, that the affection was destroyed and that the third person’s intentional or malicious conduct directly caused that loss.
The court made it clear that the mere existence of an extra-marital relationship was not enough to establish such a claim. A person cannot be held liable simply for becoming the object of another person’s affection.
Wife’s testimony on marriage
The court also found that the wife had failed to prove that she and her husband shared a loving and affectionate relationship before the other woman allegedly entered their lives.
During cross-examination, the wife admitted that there had been instances of physical, emotional and mental abuse in the marriage. She also said that her husband had denied her physical intimacy for most of the marriage after the first two or three years.
Must Read: GIVA ad featuring Kriti Sanon withdrawn after backlash: ‘Hurting sentiments was never our intent’
The court, therefore, declined to grant her any relief.
However, it rejected the defendants’ argument that the suit was time-barred. The court held that alienation of affection was a continuing wrong under Section 22 of the Limitation Act.