Allegations of Impotency Made by Wife in Matrimonial Proceedings Not Defamatory: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that allegations of impotency made by a wife during matrimonial proceedings do not amount to defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code when such statements are made in good faith to protect her legal interests. The Court quashed a defamation complaint filed by a husband against his wife and her family members, observing that the imputations fall within the ninth exception to Section 499 IPC.

Case Background

The petition arose from a defamation complaint filed by a husband before the 11th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla, alleging that the wife and her family members made defamatory imputations—specifically about his impotency—during matrimonial litigation. These included a divorce petition, a maintenance case, an FIR, and a transfer petition before the Supreme Court.

The Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC on April 15, 2023, observing:

Video thumbnail

“Complainant has failed to make out prima facie case… the defamatory statements alleged… are made by the accused No.1 i.e. wife of the complainant in matrimonial proceedings like divorce and other proceedings. Admittedly, impotency is one of the grounds of the divorce.”

READ ALSO  Allahabad HC Imposes Cost of Rs. 5 Lacs on Assistant Professor for Filing False and Frivolous Criminal Cases Against the HOD

The husband then filed a criminal revision application, and though the Sessions Court did not issue process, it remanded the matter for fresh inquiry under Section 202 CrPC. That remand was challenged before the High Court by the accused.

Arguments

For the Petitioners:

  • The Sessions Court had remanded the case based on a ground that was never pleaded by the complainant—namely, denial of an opportunity to examine witnesses.
  • The original Magistrate’s dismissal was correct, as the alleged imputations were made during judicial and police proceedings and are thus protected under the exceptions to Section 499 IPC.
  • Cited authorities:
    • Aroon Purie v. State of NCT of Delhi (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1491)
    • Iveco Magirus Branschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya (2024) 2 SCC 86

For the Respondent:

  • The complaint was dismissed prematurely, denying the complainant an opportunity to prove his case.
  • Allegations of impotency were made in bad faith and were unnecessary to the proceedings in question.
  • Such statements, being part of court records, are publicly accessible and hence per se defamatory.
  • Relied on: X v. Y [2018 DGLaw (Bom) 545]
READ ALSO  Gift Deed Once Validly Accepted Cannot Be Revoked at Will: Supreme Court

Court’s Analysis

Justice S.M. Modak held that the Sessions Court erred by remanding the matter without addressing the Magistrate’s detailed reasoning. The High Court observed:

“When he [the Magistrate] has said that these allegations are made in a divorce proceeding, he meant to convey that the case falls within the exception to defamation.”

The Court further clarified:

  • There was no material to show the complainant had asked to examine witnesses, nor any grievance raised in the revision application regarding denial of such an opportunity.
  • The Sessions Court’s basis for remand was not part of the complainant’s original pleadings and was therefore erroneous.

Regarding the content of the allegations, the Court noted that the statements were made in four separate proceedings: a police complaint, a divorce petition, a maintenance application, and a transfer petition. These, the Court said, were all part of legitimate litigation between the estranged spouses:

READ ALSO  Delhi Court Issues Warrant for Attachment of NHAI Headquarters in Dwarka in Execution of Arbitral Award

“When the litigation is between both the spouses arising out of a matrimonial relationship, the wife is justified in making those allegations to support her interest… these allegations fall within the exception Ninth to Section 499 of IPC.”

The Court also observed that there was no judicial finding one way or the other on the truth of the allegations and declined to go into that issue.

Final Order

  • The writ petition was allowed.
  • The order dated April 3, 2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge remanding the matter was set aside.
  • The original complaint under Sections 500, 506, and 34 IPC was dismissed.

Law Trend
Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles