Jilted Husband Can Sue His Wife’s Lover for Infidel Damages
Share
In the state of North Carolina, a curious legal relic from the past continues to cast its shadow on matters of the heart. Known as heart-balm torts or marital torts, these archaic laws allow a jilted husband the right to sue his wife’s lover for what is called alienation of affection or criminal conversation.
Alienation of affection is a tort that allows a spouse to sue a third party, typically a lover, for allegedly interfering with the marital relationship. The claimant must demonstrate that a genuine loss of affection or love occurred due to the actions of the third party, resulting in harm to the marriage.
Criminal conversation is a tort that enables a spouse to bring a lawsuit against a third party for engaging in sexual relations with their spouse while the marriage is still intact. Unlike alienation of affection, the focus here is on proving the act of sexual infidelity rather than emotional harm.
Transporting us back to a time when marriage was predominantly viewed as a binding property arrangement, these laws stand as a testament to an era when marital unions were less about love and more about societal duty.
In the present day, these statutes appear to be legal anachronisms, raising pertinent questions about their relevance and fairness in the context of contemporary relationships. The courtroom stage becomes the battleground for a statehouse drama, where opposing sides passionately argue whether these laws should continue to hold sway in a world where the concept of marriage has undergone profound evolution. Advocates of change argue that personal relationships should be liberated from the constraints of such antiquated legal structures, emphasising the autonomy of individuals to navigate their emotional landscapes without the threat of legal consequences.
Under these archaic laws, the jilted spouse can seek monetary compensation from the third party involved in the extramarital relationship. These remedies are often pursued in civil court and aim to hold the third party accountable for the breakdown of the marriage. The compensation sought might cover damages such as emotional distress, loss of consortium, and even financial losses incurred due to the failed marriage.
Alienation of affection is a tort that allows a spouse to sue a third party, typically a lover, for allegedly interfering with the marital relationship. The claimant must demonstrate that a genuine loss of affection or love occurred due to the actions of the third party, resulting in harm to the marriage.
Criminal conversation is a tort that enables a spouse to bring a lawsuit against a third party for engaging in sexual relations with their spouse while the marriage is still intact. Unlike alienation of affection, the focus here is on proving the act of sexual infidelity rather than emotional harm.
Transporting us back to a time when marriage was predominantly viewed as a binding property arrangement, these laws stand as a testament to an era when marital unions were less about love and more about societal duty.
In the present day, these statutes appear to be legal anachronisms, raising pertinent questions about their relevance and fairness in the context of contemporary relationships. The courtroom stage becomes the battleground for a statehouse drama, where opposing sides passionately argue whether these laws should continue to hold sway in a world where the concept of marriage has undergone profound evolution. Advocates of change argue that personal relationships should be liberated from the constraints of such antiquated legal structures, emphasising the autonomy of individuals to navigate their emotional landscapes without the threat of legal consequences.
Under these archaic laws, the jilted spouse can seek monetary compensation from the third party involved in the extramarital relationship. These remedies are often pursued in civil court and aim to hold the third party accountable for the breakdown of the marriage. The compensation sought might cover damages such as emotional distress, loss of consortium, and even financial losses incurred due to the failed marriage.
