Allegations In Matrimonial Case Can Lead To Criminal Defamation: Karnataka HC [Read Judgment]

Justice Dr H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY partly allowed the appeal filed by Sushma Rani, challenging the order passed by the revision court in the year 2012. The court set aside the sentence of one month simple imprisonment imposed on her. However, it enhanced the fine from Rs 5,000 to `15,000 which has to be paid within 60 days from October 1, or else the woman will have to serve a default sentence of Simple Imprisonment for one month.

Case background:

The husband H.N. Nagaraja Rao, had instituted a matrimonial case against his wife in the Family Court at Bengaluru, seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In that case, the accused (wife) filed her statement of objections wherein she had made certain defamatory allegations accusing the complainant (husband). The Family Court, by its judgment dated 11-04-2005 allowed the petition and ordered for restitution of conjugal rights.

In the year 2006, the husband filed a complaint against his wife alleging that the statements made by his wife in her objections to the above case have brought down his reputation and have resulted in his defamation.

After the trial ended the court by its order dated October 25, 2010, convicted the wife under Section 500 of the IPC and she was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs 5,000.

The order was challenged by her before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-XIV, CCC, Bangalore which by its order dated December 15, 2012, dismissed the appeal. Following which the wife moved the high court and the husband moved a petition seeking enhancement of the sentence.

The court framed the following questions while deciding both the petitions.

[i] Whether the complainant has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code?

[ii] Whether the sentence ordered by the Trial Court against the accused in C.C.NMo.11445/2006 on 25-10-2010 deserved to be enhanced?

[iii] Whether the judgments and order on sentence impugned under these revision petitions suffers from any illegality, impropriety, warranting interference at the hands of this Court?

The counsel for the appellant (woman) submitted that the statements made by her in the matrimonial case do not amount to publication as contemplated under section 499 of IPC.

Advocate P.V. Kalpana, who was appointed as amicus curiae for the respondent/complainant in the appeal filed by the woman, submitted that the pleadings filed in a court and the deposition given in a Court of Law are not privileged one and further stating that a pleading filed in the court also amounts to publication.

The Court accepted this submission which was supported by precedents of other High Courts.

The court took into consideration that the accused herself has, in unequivocal terms stated that, it is at her instance the statement of objection was filed in the Family Court, and she has given her evidence in the said case. Apart from filing her pleading, she has also stated about the contents of her said statement to his uncle, aunty and a friend.

It said "Therefore, it is clear that apart from filing the statements in the form of statement of objections, in the matrimonial case, she has also revealed the contents of the same to the relatives and a friend of the complainant, which clearly establishes that there was publication as required under Section 499 of IPC of the alleged defamatory statement by the accused."

On the question of whether the alleged statements in the statement of objections are defamatory. The court reproduced the statement and said "The contents of the statements of the accused, suffice it to say, would per se reveal that the said statements are defamatory in nature unless they are shown to be falling within any one of the Exceptions to Section 499 of IPC."

The court even examined whether the instant case falls under the Ninth Exception to Section 499 of IPC, as to whether the statement was made with good faith.

The bench said : "Though the learned counsel for the accused contends that she made the same in good faith, but according to the accused, they were truth. If they are true and falling under First Exception to Section 499 of IPC, then it is for her to prove that they were the facts. Admittedly, except making those statements in her statement of objections and reiterating it in evidence, she has not even attempted to show that they were the imputation of truth or that they were made in good faith. Therefore it can be safely held that the complainant has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed an offence of defamation punishable under Section 499 of IPC, which is punishable under Section 500 of IPC."

While setting aside the sentence the court said "In special circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sending the accused to serve imprisonment, however small a period it may be, that itself would drastically affect her future as well as that of her daughter. On the other hand since Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code gives discretion for imposing only fine also, the quantum of fine imposed by the Trial Court can be enhanced."

Case Details:

Case Title: Sushma Rani And H.N. Nagaraja Rao

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.152 OF 2014.

Date of Judgement: October 1, 2020.

Appearance:

Advocate Ashish Krupakar for petitioner.

Amicus Curiae, Advocate P.V. Kalpana

Click Here To Download Order

[Read Order]