Calcutta High Court : Wife's newspaper notice defamatory | Publishes baseless allegation of second marriage without proof | Court upholds right to dignity and awards Rs. 1 lakh damages
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Supratim Bhattacharya has allowed a second appeal filed by the appellant/wife, modifying the judgment of the First Appellate Court which had awarded damages of ₹2,00,000/- to the respondent/husband for defamation. The High Court found that the wife’s published notices regarding the husband’s alleged attempt to marry again amounted to defamation in law. However, considering the circumstances, the Court reduced the damages to ₹1,00,000/- and directed payment within three months. The judgment of the First Appellate Court was thus modified accordingly.
The present case arose from a matrimonial dispute between the appellant/wife, employed as a Draughtsman in the APWD department under the Andaman & Nicobar Administration, and the respondent/husband, working as an Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the Port Blair Municipal Council. The couple was married on 02.03.1994, and a male child was born on 24.01.1996. The marriage deteriorated, leading to the husband instituting Matrimonial Suit No. 27 of 2005 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Though this suit initially resulted in a decree of divorce, the wife successfully challenged it before a Division Bench of the High Court, which set aside the decree, thus maintaining the subsistence of the marriage.
Following this, the wife published notices in the daily newspaper "The Daily Telegram" on 03.12.2008 and 05.12.2008. The notices stated that despite the subsisting marriage, her husband was attempting to marry another woman, and such a marriage would be illegal. Acting upon this publication, the husband filed a suit for damages and compensation of ₹50,00,000/- for defamation against his wife and the newspaper's editor.
In the Trial Court, the wife (defendant No. 1) and the editor contested the suit. The issues framed included questions about maintainability, cause of action, limitation, estoppel, non-joinder of parties, entitlement to relief, and more. The husband produced evidence through PW1 Ramachander, PW2 Stenly James, and PW3 Md. Rafi. The wife presented DW1 Smti A (herself), DW2 Naga Maheshwar Rao, and DW3 Saswati Ray.
The Trial Court dismissed the husband’s suit, finding no case for damages. However, dissatisfied with this decision, the husband appealed before the First Appellate Court. The appellate court reversed the Trial Court’s ruling and directed the wife to pay ₹2,00,000/- as damages along with 6% interest from 01.01.2009 till realisation.
Aggrieved by the appellate decision, the wife approached the High Court through the second appeal. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed:
- Whether publication of a notice claiming subsistence of marriage and warning against remarriage amounts to stigmatization and defamation.
- Whether quantification of damages by the First Appellate Court was justified in the absence of supporting material.
During arguments, the wife contended through her counsel that the notice was merely informative, aimed at cautioning the public, and published without mala fide intention. She denied any intention to defame the husband. Conversely, the respondent/husband's counsel argued that the notice lacked proof, amounted to character aspersion, and caused social stigma and defamation.
“According to law of Torts, defamation is injury to the reputation of a person.”
The Court recorded that for defamation, three essentials must be satisfied — the statement must be defamatory, refer to the plaintiff, and be published.
“If from the statement published it can be reasonably inferred that the statement refers to the plaintiff, the defendant is nevertheless liable.”
The Court observed that the statements clearly referred to the husband, were published, and lowered his image before right-thinking members of society.
“Whether a statement is defamatory or not depends upon how the right-thinking members of the society are likely to take it.”
The wife’s publication, the Court noted, indicated that her husband was allegedly attempting remarriage during subsistence of the first marriage. This imputation, despite lacking proof and source details, was regarded by the Court as degrading and defamatory.
“She has neither revealed the source of obtaining the information nor has she been able to name the girl with whom she has implicated her husband.”
The Court further stated that the wife’s inability to substantiate the claims or identify the alleged informant demonstrated that the statements were baseless.
“From the aforementioned discussion it transpires that the notices were referred to the plaintiff…this according to a prudent man is nothing but a statement degrading the goodwill or reputation of a person.”
Regarding damages, the Court found the First Appellate Court justified in holding that damages were payable but deemed the amount excessive:“Damages to reputation through libel is hard to quantify…but…each and every citizen…has the fundamental right to live with dignity.”
The Court balanced the deterrent aspect of damages with the appellant's position as a working woman, holding that ₹1,00,000/- would be adequate.
“Quantifying such amount of damages acts as a deterrent factor and nothing more than that and it is imposed to keep the society intact.”
The Court also clarified the role of the newspaper editor: “The respondent No. 2 namely Sri Asheem Poddar…has no role to play in the defamation…as the notices have been published subject to payment of cost.”
The High Court, upon thorough consideration of the submissions and evidence, concluded that the wife, Smti A, had defamed her husband, Sri R, through the publication of the impugned notices.
Consequently, it held that the order of the First Appellate Court required modification. In disposing of the second appeal, the Court directed that the appellant, Smti A, shall pay a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to the respondent, Sri R, within a period of three months from the date of the judgment.
The judgment of the First Appellate Court was accordingly modified to this extent. The Court further ordered that the parties would be entitled to act on the basis of the server copy of the judgment and order available on the official website of the Court.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. KMB Jayapal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mrs. Anjili Nag, Senior Advocate; Mr. Ajay Majhi, Advocate
Case Title: XXX vs. YYY
Case Number: SA 7 of 2024
Bench: Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
[Read/Download order]
