In a case that has raised eyebrows across Delhi's legal circles, the High Court on Monday permitted the continuation of a civil suit filed by a wife against another woman for allegedly interfering in her marriage. The Court, presided over by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, ruled that the plaintiff, Dr. Shelly Mahajan, had disclosed enough grounds to proceed with her claim for damages based on the tort of alienation of affection (AoA).
Background
Dr. Mahajan married her husband (defendant no. 2) in March 2012, and the couple had twin children in 2018. Trouble began, according to her, when defendant no. 1, Ms. Bhanushree Bahl, joined her husband's business venture as an analyst in 2021. The wife alleged that Ms. Bahl began to spend unusual amounts of time with her husband - traveling together for work, visiting the family home, and eventually becoming his sole companion on trips.
Matters allegedly came to a head in March 2023 when Dr. Mahajan overheard what she described as "intimate remarks" and later found letters on her husband's laptop pointing to an extramarital relationship. Despite family interventions, the husband continued openly appearing with Ms. Bahl at social gatherings. By April 2025, he had even filed for divorce.
Court's Observations
The husband's lawyer pressed strongly that the case could not be entertained by the High Court. He pointed to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act and argued that disputes rooted in marital relationships should go only before family courts. He also raised the banner of personal liberty, saying,
"A husband is first an individual, vested with autonomy over his body and choices. The State cannot intrude."
Counsel for Ms. Bahl added that she bore no legal duty to stay away from a married man and that "no cause of action" lay against her.
But the Court was not convinced. Justice Kaurav took pains to trace how Indian jurisprudence has treated heart-balm torts like alienation of affection. While acknowledging that Indian law has not expressly codified this tort, he cited earlier Supreme Court remarks noting that a spouse may, in principle, sue a third party for intentional interference in a marriage.
The Judge remarked,
"If a spouse is held to possess a protectable interest in marital consortium, intimacy, and companionship, the correlative legal duty would be that any third party must not intentionally and wrongfully interfere with that relationship."
At the same time, he clarified that no liability could arise if the husband acted "entirely of his own volition." That, he said, would be a question of fact to be tested at trial.
Decision
On the narrow question of whether the suit should be thrown out at the threshold, the Court decided in the wife's favour. It held that her claim - seeking damages from Ms. Bahl for allegedly destroying her marriage - was not barred under law and could not be dismissed merely because divorce proceedings were already pending.
Justice Kaurav concluded that,
"the plaint prima facie discloses a civil cause of action for tortious interference, i.e., AoA, which is distinct from the remedies falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Courts."
Accordingly, summons were issued to both defendants, who waived formal service. They now have thirty days to file their written statements.
The case will next be taken up on December 10, 2025, for completion of pleadings.
Case Title: Shelly Mahajan v. Ms. Bhanushree Bahl & Anr.
Case Number: CS(OS) 602/2025 & I.A. 21712-21714/2025
Date of Order: 15 September 2025