Delhi High Court: Spouses Can Sue Paramours for Damages After Adultery Decriminalization

In a significant ruling that redefines civil remedies in marital disputes, the Delhi High Court has unequivocally stated that the decriminalization of adultery by the Supreme Court in 2018 does not prevent a spouse from suing their partner's paramour for damages. This landmark decision clarifies a crucial distinction between criminal prosecution and civil claims for interference in a marriage, offering a new avenue for recourse to aggrieved spouses.

The ruling, delivered by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, emphasizes the enduring relevance of the tort of "enticement" or "alienation of affections" in India's legal landscape.

While the Supreme Court's verdict in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, effectively decriminalizing adultery, it did not extinguish the civil wrong associated with third-party interference in a marriage. The High Court asserted that a spouse continues to have a right to protect their "marital consortium" – the invaluable bundle of rights encompassing companionship, affection, assistance, and conjugal relations – and to seek compensation if this consortium is damaged by another's actions.

The case before Justice Krishna involved a husband seeking damages from his wife's paramour, alleging that the third party had actively induced his wife to abandon their marital home.

The court delved into the intricacies of civil jurisprudence, explaining that while "criminal conversation" (a term historically used for a claim against a third party for adultery) is no longer applicable due to decriminalization, the tort of enticement remains robust. This tort is not merely about adultery itself, but about the active and malicious inducement of one spouse to abandon the other or to lose affection and companionship.

For a spouse to successfully claim damages under this tort, they must demonstrate more than just the mere existence of an extramarital affair or pre-existing marital discord.

The core requirement is to prove that the third party – the paramour – actively interfered with the marital relationship, causing the loss of affection, companionship, and services of the aggrieved spouse. This requires evidence that the paramour acted with "malice" or a clear "intent" to break up the marriage or to entice the spouse away, rather than merely becoming involved with someone already in a troubled marriage.

The High Court extensively referenced legal precedents from the United States, where the torts of "enticement" and "alienation of affections" have long been recognized and litigated.

These precedents underscore that the essence of such a claim lies in proving that the third party's actions were the primary cause of the marital breakdown or the loss of spousal consortium, and that such actions were deliberate and harmful.

This judgment serves as a critical clarification, drawing a clear line between criminal law's focus on punishment and civil law's objective of providing compensation for harm suffered.

It reaffirms that even as society evolves and legal frameworks adapt, the civil right to seek redress for the deliberate destruction of a marital bond remains intact. For spouses feeling the devastating impact of third-party interference, the Delhi High Court's ruling offers a glimmer of hope and a pathway to justice, emphasizing that while adultery may no longer be a crime, its civil consequences, when malicious and destructive, can still be pursued.