The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has quashed a summoning order issued against a wife in a defamation case initiated by her husband. The Court ruled that an allegation of impotency made by a wife against her husband in a complaint to the police is protected under Exception 8 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (equivalent to Exception 8 of Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)), provided it is made in good faith as part of a genuine matrimonial grievance and is not driven by malice.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Achal Sachdev allowed the application filed by the wife under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), setting aside the summoning order dated December 21, 2024, passed by the Upper Civil Judge-First/A.C.J.M., Gorakhpur in a criminal defamation complaint.
Background of the Case
The marriage of the applicant (wife) and opposite party no. 3 (husband) was solemnized on November 25, 2022. According to the applicant, the marriage was never consummated due to the physical incompetency and medical condition of the husband.
Prior to the current dispute, the husband had filed a divorce petition (Divorce Petition No. 1637 of 2023) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The wife approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court with a Transfer Petition (No. 535 of 2024), which was allowed on April 18, 2024. However, before the order was passed, the husband withdrew his divorce petition.
Aggrieved by the non-consummation of the marriage and the conduct of the husband, the wife initiated criminal proceedings under the domestic violence laws (Criminal Case No. 2139 of 2023) before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi. She also filed an application for the registration of an FIR, which led to the registration of Case Crime No. 0169 of 2024 under Sections 498-A, 406, 354-A, and 34 of the IPC at Police Station Maurya Enclave, Delhi, on April 11, 2024. In this FIR, she alleged the absence of physical intimacy, non-consummation of the marriage on the wedding night, and imputed that her husband was impotent. Following this, the wife also filed Divorce Case No. 1698 of 2024 under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking nullity of the marriage and divorce.
Subsequently, on August 27, 2024, a potency test conducted on the husband at Medanta Hospital, Gurugram, confirmed that his serum testosterone levels were very low.
In response to the criminal proceedings, the husband filed Complaint Case No. 2545 of 2024 under Section 500 IPC at Police Station Shahpur, District Gorakhpur, alleging that the wife had defamed him. On December 21, 2024, the learned Upper Civil Judge-First/A.C.J.M., Gorakhpur, passed an order summoning the wife to stand trial for defamation.
Arguments of the Parties
Arguments on behalf of the Applicant (Wife)
The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the summoning order dated December 21, 2024, suffered from a non-application of judicial mind. It was argued that the trial court failed to consider that the allegation of impotency was supported by a medical potency test report dated August 27, 2024, from Medanta Hospital, Gurugram, which confirmed low serum testosterone levels.
The counsel submitted that the defamation complaint was a retaliatory measure filed to pressurize the wife into withdrawing her criminal cases. It was argued that since the statements were confined within court pleadings and made to secure legal relief, they did not satisfy the essential ingredients of defamation under Section 499 IPC and were covered under Exception 1.
The applicant’s counsel placed reliance on the case of Raminder Kane Bodi vs. Jatinder Singh Bedi (1988 SCC Online Del 296), wherein it was held that where civil and criminal proceedings stem from the same factual substratum, the criminal complaint should not be permitted to override or obstruct the civil adjudication process.
Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 3 (Husband)
The learned counsel for the husband submitted that the wife had called him impotent in front of her family members and landlord. It was further submitted that in October 2023, the husband received a call from Police Station Mahila Thana informing him that the wife had filed a complaint alleging impotency, after which the police asked him to undergo a medical examination. The husband contended that the issue spread throughout his family, relations, and society, badly tainting his image and reputation.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court perused the records and observed that the allegation of impotency was made for the first time by the wife in the FIR dated April 11, 2024, and could not be characterized as having been made in a judicial proceeding.
Addressing the definition of defamation and its exceptions under Section 499 IPC, the Court first analyzed Exception 1 (imputation of truth for public good). The Court observed:
“The imputation that a person is a impotent prior to such fact being confirmed by medical examination report is an issue that cannot be raised in public domain and it is not covered under exception 1 of Section 499 I.P.C. and it does not relates to a bona-fide statement made in judicial proceedings for securing legal relief.”
The Court added that:
“Alleging impotency without any medical evidence on the date on which such an imputation has been made would definitely amount to defamation.”
It was further noted that while impotency could be a ground for divorce, it must be supported by a chain of events like medical reports and repeated non-consummation, and “cannot be presumed on the basis of a single incident on the wedding night.”
However, the Court turned its analysis to Exception 8 to Section 499 IPC (accusation preferred in good faith to an authorized person). On the applicability of this exception to complaints made to the police in matrimonial disputes, the Court observed:
“A complaint to a police falls squarely within Exception 8 to Section 499 I.P.C. (‘Exception 8 of Section 356 B.N.S.’) since the complainant is making a statement to a public authority in the exercise of illegal right and if the allegation is relevant to the subject matter of the complaint here a matrimonial dispute and an ailment of marriage on ground of impotency. The person making the imputation enjoys the protection that has been provided under Exception 8 to Section 499 IPC if the imputation is not made with a malice intent to injure but as a part of a genuine grievance but had it been made maliciously with no connection to the actual complaint or had it been publicized beyond the complaint by sharing the same on social media or it is demonstrably false and has been made with the knowledge of its falsity or is irrelevant and inserted only to embarrass or injure the husband the protection would not be available.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court rulings in:
- Tiruvengada Mudali Vs. Tripurasundari Ammal (1926 SCC OnLine Mad 37), which held that the exceptions under Section 499 IPC are exhaustive.
- Chaman Lal Vs. State of Punjab ((1970) 1 SCC 590), which established that “good faith” requires care, caution, and prudence, and the standard of care is regulated by the position of the person making the imputation.
Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Court found that the wife’s main allegation was that her husband was impotent, leading to non-consummation of marriage and causing her great anxiety, which was followed by harassment for dowry. The Court highlighted:
“The fact that was raised for the first time by applicant in her FIR, which has given rise to Case Crime No.0169 of 2024 u/s 498-A, 406, 354-A, 34 of IPC, Police Station Maurya Enclave, District North West of Delhi. It clearly shows that the statement has been made in good faith without malice towards opposite party no.3 and her statement is substantiated by medical examination report of opposite party no.3…”
The Court concluded that the trial court issued the summoning order without considering these crucial aspects.
Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous application and quashed the summoning order dated December 21, 2024, issued by the Upper Civil Judge-First/A.C.J.M., Gorakhpur in Complaint Case No. 2545 of 2024.
Case Details
- Case Title: Priya Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
- Case No.: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 6618 of 2025 (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:112914)
- Bench: Justice Achal Sachdev
- Date: May 15, 2026
