In a defamation suit arising out of a matrimonial dispute, the Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) has imposed a fine of ₹1,00,000 on a woman for publishing newspaper notices accusing her husband of planning a second marriage without presenting any proof. The Court partly allowed the second appeal filed by the woman, modifying the damages awarded by the First Appellate Court while affirming that her published statements amounted to defamation.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Smti A, and the respondent, Sri R, were married on 2 March 1994. A male child was born to them on 24 January 1996. Over time, their marital relationship deteriorated. The husband, an Assistant Engineer with the Port Blair Municipal Council, filed Matrimonial Suit No. 27 of 2005 seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. Although the Trial Court granted a decree of divorce, the same was set aside by a Division Bench of the High Court on 24 November 2008 in FA No. 003 of 2008, thereby restoring the marriage.
Subsequently, on 3 and 5 December 2008, the wife published notices in the local daily “The Daily Telegram,” alleging that her husband was attempting to enter into a second marriage in contravention of the law. The published notices, issued through her advocate, warned the public that any such second marriage would be void as the first marriage still subsisted.
Aggrieved by the publication, the husband filed a civil suit for defamation against his wife and the editor of the newspaper, seeking ₹50,00,000 in damages. While the Trial Court dismissed the suit, the First Appellate Court reversed the decision and awarded ₹2,00,000 in damages along with interest.
Legal Issues Considered
Upon admission of the second appeal filed by the wife (SA 7 of 2024), the High Court framed the following substantial questions of law:
- Whether a publication asserting that the appellant is the legally wedded wife and warning against the respondent’s remarriage amounts to defamation.
- Whether the First Appellate Court erred in awarding damages without adequate material supporting the extent of alleged reputational harm.
Submissions by the Parties
Appellant (Wife):
Represented by Advocate Mr. KMB Jayapal, the appellant argued that:
- The notices were intended merely to inform the public about the subsistence of her marriage with the respondent.
- There was no intention to defame or malign; the publication was in public interest to prevent an unlawful second marriage.
- The appellant could not name the informant or the alleged woman involved despite diligent efforts.
- She requested that the imposition of damages be set aside or significantly reduced given the absence of mala fide intent.
Respondent (Husband):
Senior Advocate Mrs. Anjili Nag and Mr. Ajay Majhi, appearing for the husband, submitted that:
- The wife failed to substantiate the allegations or disclose the source of her information.
- The accusation of a planned second marriage without divorce damaged the husband’s reputation in society.
- Witnesses confirmed that the husband’s social standing suffered as a result of the publication.
- The defamation was actionable per se and warranted compensation.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Supratim Bhattacharya, delivering the judgment, held that:
- The essentials of defamation — defamatory nature of the statement, reference to the plaintiff, and publication — were fulfilled.
- “From the evidence of the wife it transpires that she has neither been able to disclose the name of the informant nor she has been able to name the alleged girl whom her husband is going to marry.”
- “This according to a prudent man is nothing but a statement degrading the goodwill or reputation of a person.”
- The publication of the notice twice in a public newspaper without proof or verification of facts amounted to injury to the plaintiff’s reputation.
- As per Article 21 of the Constitution, every person has a fundamental right to live with dignity. Spreading unsubstantiated claims in public infringes on that right.
Citing Bhim Singh vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (AIR 1986 SC 494), the Court held that monetary damages under tort law are intended to deter malicious or irresponsible conduct, even if they cannot restore the reputational harm.
Regarding the quantum of damages, the Court modified the First Appellate Court’s award from ₹2,00,000 to ₹1,00,000, considering the appellant’s financial background as a government employee.
The Court also clarified that the newspaper editor, Sri Asheem Poddar, could not be held liable for the defamation, as the notice was a paid publication, and verifying the truth of all submitted content does not fall within his editorial responsibilities.
Final Decision
The High Court concluded that although defamation was established, the quantum of damages needed modification in view of the appellant’s employment and financial status. It ruled as follows:
- The judgment of the First Appellate Court was modified.
- The damages were reduced to ₹1,00,000, payable by the appellant-wife to the respondent-husband within three months.
- The editor of the newspaper was held not liable, as the publication was a paid legal notice and verifying the factual accuracy of such content did not fall within the editor’s responsibilities.
