Now Reading: Delhi court dismisses woman’s Rs 50 lakh suit over ‘stolen’ husband
-
01
Delhi court dismisses woman’s Rs 50 lakh suit over ‘stolen’ husband
A Delhi court has dismissed a woman's suit seeking Rs 50 lakh in damages from her husband's alleged paramour for 'stealing' his affection. District Judge Atul Ahlawat of Saket Courts ruled on…
A Delhi court has dismissed a woman's suit seeking Rs 50 lakh in damages from her husband's alleged paramour for 'stealing' his affection. District Judge Atul Ahlawat of Saket Courts ruled on August 20 that the wife failed to prove the other woman actively induced the breakdown of the marriage.
The court found no direct evidence that the other woman had encouraged the husband to leave. It noted that the wife's suspicions and testimony 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,' the court said.
The claim was based on the common law tort of alienation of affection, which the court said has not been enacted into Indian law. The wife had admitted during cross-examination to instances of physical, emotional and mental abuse in the marriage. The court declined to grant any relief but rejected arguments that the suit was time-barred, holding that alienation of affection is a continuing wrong.
Indian Opinion Analysis
The tort of alienation of affection, though recognised by the Supreme Court in the 2013 case Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, remains rare in Indian courts and has no statutory basis. The judgment reinforces that a spouse cannot recover damages from a third party without proving the marriage was genuinely affectionate before the interference. Here, the wife's own admission of abuse and lack of intimacy fatally weakened her case. The ruling may discourage similar 'heart-balm' suits unless claimants can produce concrete evidence of malicious inducement. The court's finding that the wrong is continuing under Section 22 of the Limitation Act leaves the door open for fresh litigation if new evidence emerges.
Source: barandbench.com
This brief was synthesised by AI from the source linked above.
