The suit has been filed seeking compensation of Rs.25,50,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only] for printing and circulating cards containing defamatory words, causing insult, dis-reputation, disrespect, disregard and mental agony to the plaintiff and for costs.
2. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows: The plaintiff and the first defendant got married on 25.11.2005 as per Hindu rites and customs at Kankagadurgamma Temple, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. For both of them, it is a second marriage. The second defendant is the father of the first defendant. The first defendant after the demise of her first husband Beemana Boyina Anjaniyulu, got employment on compassionate ground in the Hongkong Sangai Banking Corporation. The plaintiff is an Advocate clerk in the Madras High Court.
3. After the marriage, the attitude of the first defendant-wife was totally indifferent. When the plaintiff used to visit the bank to pick up the first defendant after office hours, the first defendant prevented the plaintiff entering the bank premises and would instruct him to wait in the bus stand, till she comes out of the bank. On 14.11.2006, when the plaintiff was in the High Court, the first defendant along with second defendant and one Kottaiah, barged into the residence of the plaintiff by breaking the padlock. When the plaintiff reached the house, they abused him and asked him to go out of the house. On 15.11.2006, the trio had forcibly thrown all the articles of the plaintiff out of the house and forced the plaintiff to leave the house.
4. After the death of first husband and entering into the second marriage with the plaintiff, the first defendant does not have any right or interest over the family of her first husband. On 15.01.2009, when the mother-in-law of the first husband, Beemana Boyina Anusuryamma died, the plaintiff happened to see the first defendant in the funeral that took place on 16.01.2009, not wearing the holy thread, metti, kum kum on the forehead, for the obsequies of Beemana Boyina Anusuryamma.
5. On 25.01.2009, the first defendant in collusion with the second defendant printed and distributed the obsequies card, as if the first defendant is the widow of Beemana Boyina Anchaneyalu and still continues to be the daughter-in-law of Beemana Boyina Anusuryamma. In the said card, the first defendant has mentioned her name as Beemana Boyina Bharani Bharathy, wife of late Beemana Boyina Anchaneyalu, which is contrary to the fact and the said cards were circulated with malafide intention of defaming the plaintiff. In order to defame the plaintiff and in order to grab the property of late Beemana Boyina Anusuryamma, the first defendant had deliberately printed the defamatory instrument.
6. The plaintiff issued a lawyer's notice dated 10.10.2009. The first and second defendant sent a reply on 17.11.2009, denying the printing and distribution of such card. After the demise of Beemana Boyina Anusuryamma, the application filed by the first defendant to the Tahsildar Egmore-Nungambakkam, as if she is the legal heir of late Beemana Boyina Anjaniyulu has been rejected. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit.
7. The contentions in the written statement filed by the defendants are as follows: After the demise of first husband, the plaintiff and the first defendant got married and it is the second marriage for both of them. Admittedly, the first defendant is working in Hongkong Sangai Banking Corporation and the plaintiff is an Advocate clerk. The main contention of the plaintiff is that the first defendant has printed herself as the daughter-in-law of the deceased Beemana Boyina Anusuryamma and wife of late Beemana Boyina Anchaneyalu in the obsequies cards. There was no communication of false or disparaging information about the plaintiff at all on the said cards. The real motive behind the said exercise carried out by the relatives of the deceased Beemana Boyina Anusuryamma was to convey the concerned people who she was and there was no question of her trying to lower the image of the plaintiff. The existence of malice is totally ruled out.
8. The first defendant was not the one, who printed and circulated the said cards. After the first defendant left the matrimonial home in November 2006, she had been living separately for more than three years. She was seen not wearing thali, metti, kum kum on the forehead, was the result of the hatred existing between the two and otherwise insignificant. This could not give rise to defamation. As per Law of Succession, the first defendant is within her right to succeed the properties of her first husband, even after her re-marriage. The first defendant is also not supposed to say in the application filed before the Tahsildar Egmore-Nungambakkam, whether she is married or not presently.
9. The words in the obsequies cards are not stuffed with an intention to injure the plaintiff or to produce actual damage to him. This was a bonafide assertion of the defendant's own real right not a supposed one. When the first defendant was at Vijayawada on a short trip with her parents, she came to know about the death of her mother-in-law on 15.01.2009, she came back to Chennai along with her child, Miss.Meghna, who is the only Class-I legal heir of the deceased. Except attending the funeral, the first defendant did nothing in respect of the said death. It was the relatives of the deceased and the Telugu Association of Mehta Nagar, Chennai, who printed the said cards in dispute.
10. The marriage between the first defendant and the plaintiff has had no ingredients of a healthier marriage. Since few hours after marriage, it got rough and never ended up in consummation. They were living separately. The plaintiff developed hatred towards the first defendant and sought to wreck vengeance through abuse of judicial process. Being an Advocate clerk, the plaintiff preferred series of complaints and cases as against the first defendant.
a)Writ Petition in W.P.No.20834 of 2009 seeking direction to the Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam to give particulars of the legal heir certificate of late Beemana Boyina Anusuryamma;
b)Complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime Branch, Egmore against the defendants and the first defendant's sister husband alleging that he talked vulgar with the plaintiff;
c)Legal notice to furnish the accounts of the daughter of the 1st defendant;
d)Application under the Right to Information Act to HR&CE Department, Andhra Pradesh Government to provide details of the 1st defendant brother's appointment;
e)Complaint to the CBI alleging that the first husband of the 1st defendant died in a road accident due to drunk and drive;
f)Notice to the HR of the first defendant's bank to include the plaintiff's name as nominee without the knowledge of the 1st defendant;
g)Private complaint in Crl.M.P.No.5287 of 2010 before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, for defamation which was dismissed;
h)Revision in Crl.R.C.No.190 of 2010 before the VI Additional Sessions Court and the same was dismissed;
i)Against which, a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was preferred before this Court and the same was dismissed.
11. Thus, the plaintiff has been harassing the first defendant in number of years by sending various types of legal notices and filing one case after the other. The plaintiff demanded a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) in order to stop all his activities and the first defendant refused and warned him to stop every thing. The first defendant filed a divorce petition in O.P.No.1384 of 2010 before the II Additional Family Court, Chennai and is pending. The plaintiff lodged a complaint before the Aminjikarai Police for defamation and subsequently, he preferred a complaint before the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore as aforesaid and therefore, the suit is to be dismissed.
12. On perusing the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation as prayed for in the suit ?
2) Whether not wearing thali, metti and pottu is amounting to defaming the plaintiff ?
3) Whether printing and circulating the cards containing defamatory words caused insult and disrespect to the plaintiff ?
4) To what other reliefs the parties are entitled to ? On the side of the plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 have been examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 marked. On the defendants side, no oral evidence has been let in and Ex.D1 to Ex.D16 have been marked.
13. Issue Nos.2 and 3 : Admitted facts are that ; The plaintiff and the first defendant got married on 25.11.2005 as per Hindu rites and customs and the same is still subsisting. The said marriage is the second marriage for both of them. The first defendant has got a minor female child through her first husband, namely, Beemana Boyina Anchaneyalu, who died in a motor accident and after his demise, the first defendant got employment on compassionate ground in the Hongkong Sangai Banking Corporation. Mother of the first husband, namely, Beemana Boyina Anusuryamma died on 15.01.2009. The plaintiff and the first defendant got separated and they have been living separately from November, 2006. The plaintiff mainly claims the defamation on two grounds:
i) during subsistence of the marriage with him, the first defendant was seen by him and relatives, without wearing the holy thread, metti and kum kum on the fore head, in the funeral of Beemana Boyina Anusuryamma that took place on 16.01.2009 and ii) in the obsequies card, the first defendant's name had been mentioned as Beemana Boyina Bharani Bharathy, wife of late Beemana Boyina Anchaneyalu.
14. When the marriage between the first defendant and the plaintiff is subsisting, non wearing of thali, metti and kum kum on the forehead and circulation of obsequies cards among the relatives, lowered the reputation of the plaintiff, in the midst of the relatives and neighbours. As already pointed out, from November 2006 the plaintiff and the first defendant have been living separately. After about more than two years, former Mother-in-law of the first defendant passed away on 15.01.2009. Because of the separation and hatred, the first defendant was not wearing holy thread, metti and kum kum on the forehead. Wearing holy thread, metti and kum kum by a married woman is her personal right. It is averred in the plaint that when the plaintiff is very much alive, the first defendant was not wearing holy thread, metti and kum kum on the forehead. But, it is not established through any acceptable evidence that a married woman in their community has to compulsorily wear holy thread, metti and kum kum on the forehead as per customs. Therefore, it is a matter of right of a woman either to wear holy thread, metti or kum kum on her forehead.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff cited the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Hanumantha Rao v. S. Ramani. reported in AIR 1999 SC 1318 and contended that mangalsutra around the neck of the wife is a sacred thing for a Hindu wife as it symbolises continuance of married life. In the above Judgment, it has been held as follows : The removal of the Mangalsutra by the wife at the instance of her husband does not amount to mental cruelty within the meaning of S.13 (1) (ia) of the Act. It is no doubt true that Mangalsutra around the neck of a wife is a sacred thing for a Hindu wife as it symbolises continuance of married life. A Hindu wife removes her Mangalsutra only after the death of her husband. It is not a case where a wife after tearing her Mangalsutra threw at her husband and walked out of her husband's house. The above ruling has been given while deciding about the mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Parameters for deciding mental cruelty and defamation are different.
16. In this case, there is absolutely no acceptable evidence to show how the reputation of the plaintiff was affected by non-wearing of the Mangalsutra by the first defendant out of hatred and separate living. The above ruling is not applicable to the facts of this case. The contention of the plaintiff that non wearing of those by the first defendant lowered his reputation among the relatives is not acceptable.
17. With respect to the obsequies cards, the plaintiff contends that during the subsistence of marriage of the plaintiff with the first defendant, the first defendant printed the cards, as if she is the wife of Beemana Boyina Anchaneyalu and circulated to their relatives and friends and the same has lowered the reputation of the plaintiff. The defendants, per contra, contends that the cards were not printed by the defendants and the same were printed by the relatives of the deceased and the Telugu Association of Metha Nagar, Chennai. The plaintiff was examined as PW1; his paternal uncle and the cousin of the plaintiff were examined as PW2 and PW3, who have deposed that the obsequies cards were circulated by the second defendant.
18. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants that the relationship as to the mother-in-law will never get changed and therefore, mentioning as mother-in-law in the obsequies cards of deceased Beemana Boyina Anusuryamma, does not amount to any defamation. Similarly she remains as wife of late Beema Boyina Anjaniyulu though she married the plaintiff after the demise of her first husband. The obsequies card is found printed in the name of the first defendant as Beemana Boyina Bharani Bharathy, [daughter-in-law] W/o.Late Beemana Boyina Anjaniyulu. Thus, as daughter-in-law of the deceased Beemana Boyina Anusuryamma, obsequies card was printed and distributed.
19. The tort of defamation is based on the case laws on the subject. In the book of Law of Tort published by Lexiz Nexis Butterworths [Indian reprint 2nd edition] 2007. Paragraph Nos.25.44 at page No.1302 is extracted hereunder : 25.44 There is no wholly satisfactory definition of when a statement may be defamatory. That said, the essential nature of a defamatory statement is that it is one that causes an adverse effect on a persons reputation, that is to say, how he is viewed by others. Thus, a statement may be defamatory if it has a tendency to lower, or adversely affect, a persons reputation, or if it exposes a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or causes him to be shunned or avoided, or injuries his reputation in the conduct of his trade or business or professional activity. To be defamatory a statement need only have the tendency to affect a persons reputation; it need not actually lower it. Thus, an imputation may be defamatory whether or not it is believed by those to whom it is published. The standard applied is that of the right-thinking member of society generally. Paragraph No.25.45 deals with reputation which reads as under : 25.45 Reputation in this context is interpreted broadly as comprehending all aspects of a persons standing in the community. Thus, a statement may be defamatory if it impugns a persons mental competency, or if it reflects adversely on his moral character, or if it comments adversely on his physical characteristics. Reputation is not, however, limited to a persons general character but extends to his reputation in his trade, business, calling or profession. Thus, a statement may be defamatory if it imputes lack of qualification, knowledge, skill, capacity, judgment or efficiency in the conduct of his trade, business, calling or profession. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishore Samrite Vs State of U.P. and Others reported in [2013] 2 SCC 398, as to the reputation has held as follows : 58. The term person includes not only the physical body and members but also every bodily sense and personal attribute among which is the reputation a man has acquired. Reputation can also be defined to be good name, the credit, honour or character which is derived from a favourable public opinion or esteem, and character by report. The right to enjoyment of a good reputation is a valuable privilege of ancient origin and necessary to human society. Reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to enjoyment of life, liberty and property. Although character and reputation are often used synonymously, but these terms are distinguishable. Character is what a man is and reputation is what he is supposed to be in what people say he is. Character depends on attributes possessed and reputation on attributes which others believe one to possess. The former signifies reality and the latter merely what is accepted to be reality at present. (Ref. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry [(1989) 1 SCC 494] and Nilgiris Bar Assn. v. T.K. Mahalingam [(1998) 1 SCC 550 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 450 : AIR 1998 SC 398] .) The methodology adopted by the next friends in the writ petitions before the High Court was opposed to political values and administration of justice. In Kushum Lata v. Union of India [(2006) 6 SCC 180] , this Court observed that (SCC p. 182, para 5) when there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, the said petition should be dismissed by the Court. If such petitions are not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreak vengeance as well. Therefore, it is to be analysed whether non mentioning of the present husband in the obsequies card, lowered the plaintiff's reputation or shunned or exposed him to hatred, contempt or ridicule.
20. Learned counsel for the defendant cited Cherotte Suganthan [D] by Lrs & others Vs. Cherotte Bharathi & others reported in 2008 [2] CTC 92. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, has an overriding effect prevail over the text of any Hindu Law or the provisions of 1856 Act and remarriage of wife cannot be a ground for refusing right to succeed her deceased husband's property.
21. Admittedly, the first defendant has got a female child through her first husband and the first defendant and her daughter are the only legal heirs to succeed the property of the first husband and the deceased mother-in-law Beemana Boyina Anusuryamma. The obsequies card is to inform the relatives and friends about the date and place, where the last rites ceremony of the deceased is to be performed. The obsequies card were printed in the name of the first defendant showing the legal heir of the deceased Beemana Boyina Anusuryamma. The intention of printing the obsequies cards is not to suppress the remarriage or the present husband's name. But, it was to make it clear to the relatives and friends as to whose last rites ceremony is to be held. There is also no falsity or suppression of any truth.
22. Though the plaintiff in his evidence says that his reputation has been lowered down among the relatives and friends, he has not stated how his reputation has been affected. There is absolutely no evidence that circulation of obsequies cards, exposed him to hatred, contempt or ridicule or caused him to be shunned or avoided. Reputation is what a person is supposed to be in what people say he is. Therefore, regarding lowering of reputation, there should be evidence as to how, his reputation became affected or lowered among the right thinking people. Such evidence is lacking in this case. For the aforesaid reasons, Issue Nos.2 and 3 are answered as against the plaintiff.
23. Issue No.1 : In the light of the decisions rendered for issue Nos.2 and 3, the plaintiff is not entitled to compensation as prayed for in the suit. In fine, the Civil suit is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. 16.06.2017 Index : Yes/No ah/gya P.KALAIYARASAN, J. Pre-Delivery Judgment in C.S.No.755 of 2010 16.06.2017
Comments