Summary:
In a significant win for the reputation and dignity of men, the Calcutta High Court (Port Blair Bench) held a wife liable for publishing false and defamatory notices against her husband in a widely circulated newspaper. The Court found that the wife made unverified and damaging claims about her husband’s character—particularly that he was attempting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first. It held this to be an act of defamation and directed the wife to pay ₹1,00,000 in damages. A firm and much-needed message against character assassination in matrimonial disputes.
Facts of the Case
- The parties were married in 1994 and had a son in 1996.
- The husband (R), an Assistant Engineer, filed for divorce in 2005 on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
- While the divorce was initially granted, the wife (A) appealed, and the High Court set aside the divorce, meaning the marriage legally continued.
- In December 2008, the wife published notices in a local newspaper twice, claiming the husband was planning an illegal second marriage, even naming his workplace.
- The husband filed a defamation suit seeking ₹50 lakhs in damages.
- The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but on appeal, the First Appellate Court awarded ₹2 lakhs to the husband.
- The wife appealed further, leading to this final ruling by the High Court.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Law of Torts (Defamation) – Civil wrong causing harm to reputation
- Article 21 of the Constitution – Right to live with dignity
- Civil Procedure Code – Governs civil remedies and appeals
- Key Elements of Defamation:
- Defamatory statement
- The statement refers to the plaintiff
- The statement is published
Arguments of Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioner (Wife):
- Claimed the notice was meant to inform the public of the subsisting marriage.
- Denied any intention to defame or cause harm.
- Argued it was a socially responsible act, not a defamatory one.
- Claimed she did not mention any names or publish anything untrue deliberately.
Respondent (Husband):
- Asserted that the allegations were baseless and unverified, with no source disclosed.
- The statement that he was trying to remarry was false and defamatory.
- His reputation was damaged in society and workplace.
- Wife admitted in cross-examination that she could not name the woman or prove the remarriage claim.
Court’s Observations:
- The wife published the statement twice in a newspaper, making it widely known.
- She failed to prove the claim that her husband was planning a second marriage.
- She did not reveal the source of her information or provide any evidence.
- The Court ruled that even if there was no malicious intent, the effect of the publication was defamatory.
- Citing precedents, the Court held that reputation is a form of property, and damaging it without proof is actionable under tort law.
- The Court reduced the damages from ₹2,00,000 to ₹1,00,000, considering the wife’s financial background, but upheld the finding of defamation.
Conclusion of the Judgment:
- The High Court held the wife guilty of civil defamation.
- Directed her to pay ₹1,00,000 in damages to her husband within three months.
- Cleared the editor of the newspaper of any wrongdoing, noting he had no duty to verify paid notices.
- Recognised that publicly defaming someone without evidence is not protected, even in a marital context
Comments from the author for this website
This case sends a strong and overdue message: men have reputations too—and they deserve protection under law.
Too often, in marital conflicts, baseless allegations are made in public forums to shame, harass, or emotionally blackmail the man. Once published, such statements spread like wildfire—damaging careers, family honour, and mental peace. Here, a husband was falsely accused of trying to marry again. The wife admitted in court she had no name, no evidence, and no source—yet the claim was printed twice in the newspaper.
This judgment affirms a critical truth:
- You can’t destroy a man’s name without consequences.
- False accusations must come with accountability.
- Public humiliation is not a right, no matter how emotional the dispute.
It also highlights a blind spot in our society: men rarely pursue defamation cases due to stigma, cost, or emotional fatigue. But this case shows that men can, and should, stand up for their dignity—because when words cause harm, the law can provide justice.
This ruling should empower more men to legally challenge defamation and false allegations—not with revenge, but with facts, law, and dignity.
Read Complete Judegment Here