A Delhi court has recently declined to take up a defamation complaint filed by a woman against her husband, who had earlier secured a divorce in Karnataka on the grounds of cruelty and adultery.
Judicial Magistrate First Class Yashdeep Chahal ruled on May 16 that without proof of deliberate intent to harm, the allegations did not meet the legal threshold for defamation.
Background
The couple married on April 28, 2008, but their relationship deteriorated over the years. In 2020, the husband approached the Family Court in Bengaluru seeking divorce, citing cruelty and adultery. In his affidavit of evidence, he accused his wife of:
Carrying on an affair with her gym trainer
Meeting the trainer in secrecy
Inviting him home when the husband was away
Staying in hotels with the trainer
During cross-examination in the divorce proceedings, however, the husband “could not substantiate his allegations and failed to justify the ground of adultery.” The court ultimately granted the divorce solely on the grounds of cruelty.
Defamation Complaint
While visiting Delhi to meet a friend, the wife came across her husband’s filed affidavit and read the contents aloud. Her friend then confronted her with questions about the trainer allegations, which she felt publicly humiliated her. She filed a defamation complaint in Delhi, claiming her husband’s unverified claims tarnished her reputation.
Court’s Legal Reasoning
In dismissing the complaint, JMFC Chahal emphasized that defamation requires proof of mens rea, or the intention to damage another’s reputation. He observed:
“A crucial element for completing the offence of defamation is that the imputation (allegation) must have been made with the requisite mens rea (intention) to cause harm to the reputation of the concerned person.”
Finding no evidence that the husband made the statements with malicious intent, the court concluded there was no prima facie case. Consequently, it “declined cognizance under Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code and disposed of the complaint.”
Concerns Over Forum Shopping
The judge also criticized the choice of Delhi as the venue for the complaint:
“It is also apparent from how the cause of action has been created in Delhi. To keep the pot boiling is a method which the Courts must be circumspect about.”
He noted that higher courts have repeatedly warned against abusing criminal proceedings to settle civil or monetary disputes, stating that such misuse “must be nipped in the bud.”
Pressure Tactics
The court further took issue with the wife’s request to keep the complaint pending during ongoing settlement negotiations. JMFC Chahal saw this as an attempt to maintain “pressure points” on the husband rather than as a genuine pursuit of justice:
“The prayer on behalf of the complainant to keep this complaint pending, for no reason whatsoever, till settlement talks are going on outside the Court, only points in the direction alleged by the accused to keep the pressure points on.”
Implications Of The Order
This ruling clarifies that mere repetition of unproven allegations in matrimonial filings does not automatically constitute criminal defamation. Without a clear intent to defame, such statements fall outside the scope of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
The decision underscores the judiciary’s insistence on both a factual basis and demonstrable malicious intent before criminalizing reputational claims.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
