The Bombay High Court has dismissed a defamation case filed by a Mumbai man against his estranged wife and her family members over allegations of impotency made during multiple matrimonial proceedings, ruling that such statements fall within the legal exceptions to defamation when made in the course of litigation between spouses.
The bench of Justice S.M. Modak set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, which had remanded the case back to the trial magistrate for further inquiry.
The bench held that the remand order was legally unsustainable as it was based on grounds not raised in the complainant’s revision petition and failed to address the trial court’s core findings.
The complainant had accused his wife and her father and brother of making defamatory statements, including claims of his impotency, in various legal proceedings — an FIR, a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, a maintenance case under Section 125 of the CrPC, and a transfer petition before the Supreme Court. He alleged these statements were made in bad faith and damaged his reputation.
In April 2023, the 11th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the CrPC, finding no prima facie case for issuing process under Sections 500 (defamation) and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 IPC. The magistrate observed that the allegations were made in the context of matrimonial litigation, where impotency was cited as a ground for divorce, and there was no evidence of criminal intimidation.
The complainant challenged this before the Sessions Court, which, while not ordering issuance of process, remanded the case for an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC to allow witness examination.
Justice Modak noted that the Sessions Court’s remand was based on the assumption that the complainant was denied an opportunity to examine witnesses, even though this grievance was neither raised in the revision petition nor supported by the record. The High Court also emphasised that allegations of impotency made in the course of divorce, maintenance, or related proceedings are relevant to the issues at hand and can fall within the Ninth Exception to Section 499 IPC, which protects statements made in good faith for self-protection or for protecting another’s interests.
“When litigation is between spouses arising out of matrimonial relationship, the wife is justified in making such allegations to support her case,” the Court held, adding that there was no judicial finding on the truth of the allegations but they were contextually connected to the disputes.
The Court also applied Supreme Court precedents, including Aroon Purie v. State of NCT of Delhi and Iveco Magirus Branschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya, to hold that the benefit of defamation exceptions can be considered even at the quashing stage under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC.
Read More: Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder: Delhi HC Refuses to Stay Release of Film
