Torts Affecting Family Relations — MCQs

All questions with answers and explanations

Read the full set here, or use the practice card above to test yourself one question at a time.

1. What does the action for 'loss of consortium' historically compensate?

   • Loss of a business partner's services
   • Loss of a spouse's companionship, society, and services caused by a tortious injury inflicted by a third party (correct answer)
   • Loss of wages due to wrongful termination
   • Damage to jointly owned property

   Explanation. Loss of consortium compensates a spouse for the loss of the other spouse's companionship, society, and services, where a third party's tort injures that other spouse.

2. In Best v Samuel Fox & Co Ltd (1952), why was the wife's claim for loss of consortium rejected?

   • Because her husband's injury was not caused by any tort
   • Because the action for loss of consortium was traditionally available only to husbands, not wives, reflecting its gender-asymmetric common law origins (correct answer)
   • Because she had not been married long enough
   • Because the injury occurred outside the jurisdiction

   Explanation. The House of Lords held that at common law, the action for loss of consortium was historically available only to a husband for injury to his wife, not vice versa — illustrating the doctrine's outdated, gender-asymmetric origins.

3. What is 'enticement' as a tort affecting family relations?

   • Inducing a spouse to leave the other spouse (correct answer)
   • A criminal offence of kidnapping
   • A form of defamation against a spouse
   • A remedy available only to unmarried persons

   Explanation. Enticement refers to inducing one spouse to leave the other, historically recognised as a tort affecting the marital relationship.

4. What is 'criminal conversation' as historically recognised in the law of torts?

   • A criminal prosecution for defamatory conversation
   • Adultery treated as a tort giving rise to a civil claim, now largely obsolete (correct answer)
   • A tort involving false imprisonment during interrogation
   • A modern statutory remedy under Indian family law

   Explanation. Criminal conversation historically treated adultery as an actionable civil wrong against the other spouse — this action is now largely obsolete in most common law jurisdictions.

5. What is the modern status of most torts affecting family relations (loss of consortium, enticement, criminal conversation) in England?

   • They remain fully operative and frequently litigated
   • They have been largely abolished, including by the Administration of Justice Act 1982 (correct answer)
   • They were converted into criminal offences
   • They apply only to unmarried couples

   Explanation. Most of these actions have been abolished or become largely obsolete in England, including through the Administration of Justice Act 1982, reflecting changed social attitudes toward marriage and gender roles.

6. What was historically the action available to a parent or master for the 'seduction' of a daughter or servant?

   • A claim for loss of the child's or servant's services, treated as analogous to a master-servant relationship (correct answer)
   • A criminal complaint filed by the seduced person alone
   • A claim only available to unmarried women themselves
   • A remedy under modern consumer protection law

   Explanation. Historically, actions for seduction were framed as a parent's or master's claim for loss of services — a now largely obsolete construction reflecting an outdated view of dependent family members as providers of services.

7. Why do torts affecting family relations have very limited modern relevance in India today?

   • Because the Indian Contract Act, 1872 expressly abolished them
   • Because India did not develop these actions, which treated a person as the property of another and are dealt with by criminal and personal law (correct answer)
   • Because family law entirely displaced tort law in India by statute
   • Because these torts require registration with a family court before being pleaded

   Explanation. India did not develop these actions in practice. Each action treated a person as the property of another, and the wrongs are dealt with by criminal and personal law.

8. Which of the following best distinguishes 'harbouring a spouse' from 'enticement'?

   • Harbouring involves knowingly sheltering a spouse who has already left the other, without necessarily having induced the departure; enticement involves actively inducing the departure (correct answer)
   • They are identical torts with no distinction
   • Harbouring applies only to criminal cases
   • Enticement can only be committed by a stranger, never a family member

   Explanation. Enticement involves actively inducing a spouse to leave; harbouring involves knowingly sheltering a spouse who has already left, without necessarily having caused the initial departure.

9. A husband is severely injured by a third party's negligence and his wife loses his companionship. Under the common law action for loss of consortium, as decided in Best v. Samuel Fox and Co. (1952), could the wife sue the third party for this loss?

   • No, at common law only a husband could sue for loss of his wife's consortium (correct answer)
   • Yes, a wife had the same right as a husband
   • Only the couple's children could sue
   • No one could sue, because consortium was never recognised

   Explanation. At common law only the husband could sue. In Best v. Samuel Fox and Co. (1952), the House of Lords held that a wife could not sue for loss of her husband's consortium.

10. In India, how does loss of consortium survive today?

    • As a separate action against a third party
    • As a head of compensation in death claims, fixed at Rs 40,000 in Pranay Sethi (correct answer)
    • As a criminal offence
    • It does not survive in any form

    Explanation. Loss of consortium survives in India as a head of compensation in death claims before the Claims Tribunal. The Constitution Bench in National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi fixed the sum at Rs 40,000, rising by 10 per cent every three years.

11. In Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 IPC (adultery) because it:

    • Was too lenient
    • Treated a wife as the husband's property and violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 (correct answer)
    • Applied only to married women
    • Conflicted with the Hindu Marriage Act

    Explanation. The Constitution Bench held Section 497 treated the wife as the husband's property, violating Articles 14, 15 and 21.