Recently, a Delhi Court has dismissed a defamation complaint filed by a woman against her husband, who had previously accused her of adultery in a divorce petition filed in Karnataka.
The couple got married on April 28, 2008. As the relationship turned sour, the husband filed for divorce in 2020 before the Family Court in Bengaluru. In the divorce petition, he sought separation on grounds of cruelty and adultery.
To substantiate his claim of adultery, the husband submitted an affidavit of evidence in which he alleged that his wife was having an affair with her gym trainer. According to him, she used to meet the trainer secretly, invited him home in his absence, and frequently visited hotels with him.
During cross-examination in the divorce proceedings, the husband allegedly failed to substantiate these claims. Eventually, the Court granted divorce on the ground of cruelty, not adultery.
Subsequently, the woman filed a defamation complaint against her husband, alleging that the adultery accusations were false and had damaged her reputation.
She claimed that while she was in Delhi to visit a friend, her husband confronted her with the affidavit containing these allegations. Her friend read the affidavit and questioned her about the content, which she alleged caused reputational harm.
Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Yashdeep Chahal declined to take cognisance of the defamation complaint while observing, "A crucial element for completing the offence of defamation is that the imputation (allegation) must have been made with the requisite mensrea (intention) to cause harm to the reputation of the concerned person."
The Court further held that "I have no hesitation in observing that the version of the complainant fails to disclose the ingredients and nexus necessary for proving the offence of defamation against the accused herein, and thus, no prima facie case is made out for taking cognisance. Accordingly, cognisance is declined under Section 223 of BNSS and the complaint is disposed of."
The court also questioned the choice of Delhi as the place of filing the complaint while stating that "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. I need not say more."
The court noted that the complaint appeared to be an attempt to misuse the criminal justice system and said that it has been observed by the Constitutional Courts, time and again, that the tendency to misuse the criminal machinery for settling monetary/civil scores must be nipped in the bud.
Additionally, the Court remarked on the complainant’s plea to keep the matter pending amid out-of-court settlement discussions and observed, "Without expressing much, I may only note that 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."
Source Link
Picture Source :
