The Grammar Of Love And Law

Tolstoy once remarked that all happy families are alike, but every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. On 15th September 2025, the Delhi High Court gave that unhappiness a language the law could recognise. In Shelly Mahajan v. Bhanushree Bahl, it ruled that a wife may sue her husband's lover for “stealing his affections.” What might once have belonged to the world of novels has now entered our law. The court revived the forgotten tort of alienation of affection, which means that when someone intentionally breaks a marriage or comes between two people in love, the hurt caused can be treated as something the law should take seriously.The ruling does not seek to moralise private choices. Instead, it restores balance between freedom in love and responsibility in conduct. It recognises that choices made in intimacy, though deeply personal, can produce harm that is neither abstract nor invisible. By acknowledging such harm, the court treats love not as an emotion beyond law but as an act with consequence.

Marriage as legal relationship

At the centre of the ruling lies a clear proposition: marriage is both an emotional commitment and a protected legal bond. When a third person intentionally interferes with that bond and causes estrangement, the injured spouse may seek compensation. The court defined this claim through three elements: intentional malice, where interference is deliberate; causation, which demands a link between the conduct and the breakdown; and loss, which recognises emotional, reputational, or financial injury.

The judgment sets clear limits for this delicate issue. The law does not step into ordinary matters of love or emotion. It steps in only when someone deliberately interferes in a relationship and there is real proof of harm. In doing so, the court turns heartbreak into something the law can recognise and reminds us that freedom in love carries meaning only when we respect the rights and feelings of others.

Filling the void

The decision draws significance from Joseph Shine, which decriminalised adultery and liberated intimacy from punishment. That ruling dismantled patriarchal notions of spouses as property and affirmed personal choice as a constitutional value. It also left open the question of civil accountability. Could a spouse who experiences harm still seek remedy?

The Delhi High Court now fills that gap. By reviving alienation of affection as a civil wrong, it affirms that decriminalisation did not extinguish responsibility. These claims will be heard by civil courts, not family courts, since the defendant is an outsider to the marriage. The focus shifts from punishing desire to address injury. In recognising deliberate interference as actionable harm, the law reaffirms that freedom in private life must coexist with duty to avoid unjust damage to others.

India's distinct path

In many countries, the tort that once allowed people to sue for a broken relationship has faded away. England ended them in 1970, and most of the American states soon followed, fearing misuse or the idea of turning love into a transaction. India has taken a different course. Here, relationships are not seen as purely private matters but as part of a shared social life where family and community continue to hold deep value.

The Delhi High Court's decision reflects this understanding. It recognises that freedom and responsibility must exist together. Marriage may be personal, but it also forms the base of social trust. Protecting it from deliberate harm is not about passing moral judgment but about preserving that trust. In this view, the law acts as a safeguard, not a moral authority. By placing this remedy within a space of accountability, the court respects individual choice while reminding us that true freedom has meaning only when used with care and consideration for others.

Proof and privacy in modern timesIt will take tact to apply this remedy. Messages, emails, and photos may be included in the evidence in a time when love is expressed online. These pieces may misrepresent the context or disclose intent. Courts must establish precise criteria for relevance and authenticity in order to differentiate between speculative accusations and actual proof. Not every image is proof of design, and not every conversation is a confession.

Dignity shouldn't be sacrificed in the pursuit of truth. When a law touches on private matters, it must be done so sparingly and with consideration for justice and compassion. Whether this innovation promotes justice or encourages abuse will depend on how proof and privacy are balanced. The law can only safeguard freedom and trust when evidence is handled carefully.

Freedom with responsibility 

The ruling deepens the conversation on autonomy. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld privacy and choice as essential parts of personal liberty. Building on that idea, the Delhi High Court reminds us that rights find their true meaning only when exercised with a sense of responsibility and respect for others. Freedom and accountability are not opposites; they sustain each other.

This principle applies equally to everyone and rests on evidence, not assumption. The ruling does not punish attraction or criminalise emotion. It speaks only to deliberate acts that damage a lawful relationship. In doing so, the court recognises that intimacy has a moral dimension and that freedom, when used without regard for others, can erode the trust that relationships depend upon. The judgment weaves responsibility into the fabric of liberty and invites us to think about how love and justice can coexist in the same space.

Justice as recognition

The strength of this new remedy will depend on how carefully it is applied. Money cannot repair a broken heart or rebuild companionship, but it can still recognise the pain caused and affirm that betrayal has consequences. If judges approach such cases with fairness and compassion, the law can serve as a quiet reminder that intimacy is not without duty.

The Delhi High Court's decision has given the language of affection a new kind of accountability. It acknowledges that relationships, though deeply personal, deserve protection from deliberate harm. In a time when personal freedom often claims absolute space, the ruling restores a sense of balance. Love may always remain an affair of the heart, but when it becomes a source of harm, the law cannot look away. The court has not moralised intimacy; it has given it dignity by showing that freedom in love finds meaning only when paired with care and respect for another.

Author is a lawyer and public policy consultant. Views Are Personal.