By: Isuru Parakrama
November 04, Colombo (LNW): The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has affirmed that a party in a divorce case can seek damages from a third party—specifically, an alleged adulterer—without necessarily pursuing divorce in the same legal action.
This historic decision, which sets a significant precedent for future divorce cases involving third-party misconduct, emerged from a recent appeal involving complex questions of marital and third-party liability.
The judgement, delivered with the concurrence of Justices Preethi Padman Surasena and Achala Wengappuli, included Justice Priyantha Fernando’s observation that seeking damages from a third-party adulterer does not constitute a misjoinder of causes of action.
The judgement clarified that the claim for damages is separate and valid, as the plaintiff wife and defendant husband’s marriage had allegedly disintegrated due to the adulterous actions of the co-defendant.
The Supreme Court’s ruling followed an appeal by the co-defendant, who contested prior judgements from the Hatton District Court and the Kandy High Court of Civil Appeals.
These lower courts had initially ruled in favour of the husband, dismissing the wife’s petition for divorce and requiring the co-defendant to pay Rs. 500,000 in damages to the husband for causing the breakdown of the marriage.
The case originated from a claim by the wife for divorce on grounds of desertion, with the husband contesting this claim and arguing instead that it was his wife’s relationship with the co-defendant that caused the marital collapse.
The husband, whilst seeking dismissal of the wife’s divorce request, did not himself request a divorce on grounds of adultery. Rather, he pursued damages against the co-defendant for alleged injuria (harm to marital consortium).
Consequently, the courts upheld the husband’s right to seek financial redress from the third party.
The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies that under Sri Lankan law, a spouse may pursue damages from a third party who disrupts a marriage without initiating a divorce petition.
This decision reinforces the stance that whilst adultery is not a criminal offence in Sri Lanka, it is grounds for divorce and compensation claims in civil court.
The ruling also underscores that the aggrieved spouse holds the right to claim damages based on the adulterous actions of a third party, without requiring an accompanying divorce petition.
The counsel representing each party were: P. Peramunugama, with Ranganath Peiris and Jithma Anjalee for the co-defendant; Nayanajith De Silva, instructed by De Silva & De Silva, for the husband; and Wardani Karunaratne, with Hiruni Silva, instructed by P. Suthanthiraraj, for the wife.
