The Court found no direct evidence to show that the other woman had induced the husband to leave his wife.
The Court also said that while the duty to honour the marital relationship rested on the husband, the other woman had no corresponding legal obligation to thwart his advances.
“There was no corresponding duty upon her to thwart away any advances made by the defendant no.
2, since, the corresponding duty of conjugal relationship rested only on the defendant no.
1 cannot be saddled with such an obligation under the law,” the Court said.
District Judge Atul Ahlawat of Saket Courts on August 20 ruled that the wife failed to prove that her husband's affair partner actively induced or encouraged the breakdown of the marriage.
The Court found no direct evidence to show that the other woman had induced the husband to leave his wife. It added that the wife's suspicions and information allegedly received from a driver, who died before he could testify, could not take the place of 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 with respect to the ingredients of the present tort of AoA,” the Court said.
The Court also said that while the duty to honour the marital relationship rested on the husband, the other woman had no corresponding legal obligation to thwart his advances.
“There was no corresponding duty upon her to thwart away any advances made by the defendant no. 2, since, the corresponding duty of conjugal relationship rested only on the defendant no. 2 and the defendant no. 1 cannot be saddled with such an obligation under the law,” the Court said.
