A Critical Evaluation of the Tort of Alienation of Affection in Light of Shelly Mahajan

Abstract

The Tort of Alienation of Affection (AoA) has recently attracted attention in India following the Delhi High Court's order in Shelly Mahajan v. Bhanushree Bahl & Anr. (2025). Although Indian courts have referred to the possibility of such a Tort, its exact scope and legal basis continue to remain unclear. This raises important questions regarding the nature of liability under AoA and the person against whom such liability should properly lie. The present article examines the issue by looking at the conceptual foundations of Tort law, relevant judicial observations, and the treatment of similar claims in other jurisdictions. Particular attention is given to the common assumption that a third party who is alleged to have interfered in a marriage can be made liable for alienation of affection. The article argues that this understanding is difficult to justify when examined in light of established principles of Tort law. Since, marital rights and obligations exist primarily between spouses, they are generally enforceable only against the spouse who owes those obligations. On this reasoning, the imposition of liability on a third party appears conceptually weak. The article therefore suggests that, if AoA is to be recognised as a Tort in India, liability should be confined to the spouse whose conduct results in the breach of marital obligations. Such an approach would be more consistent with the idea of rights in personam and would better align Tort law with the existing framework of Matrimonial law.