Wife fined Rs 1 lakh by Calcutta High Court for defaming husband with false public notices in a newspaper amid ongoing divorce battle

Time of India

01-05-2025

The
Calcutta High Court
on April 11, 2025, ordered a
wife
to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation for damage caused to her
husband's reputation
. The reason for this damage was that she published two defamatory statements in a newspaper against her
husband
who works in an government department as assistant engineer. The said public notices said that he was about to marry another woman while their divorce proceedings were still going on in court. However, the husband contended that this was a totally false and a made-up story and he had no intention of marrying again until the divorce proceedings are finalised.
#Pahalgam Terrorist Attack
A Chinese shadow falls on Pahalgam terror attack case probe
How India can use water to pressure Pakistan
Buzzkill: How India can dissolve the Pakistan problem, not just swat it
In light of this damage to his reputation and character, he approached the Calcutta High Court and filed a defamation case against the wife and the newspaper editor. Sworn witness testimony presented by the husband's lawyer before the court showed that his wife's public notices caused humiliation, and his reputation was badly tarnished in society as people in society questioned his character.
When wife was asked by the court how she knew about her husband's alleged 2nd marriage, she had no answer except that she learnt it from a 'reliable source'. She, however, failed to prove or present this 'reliable source' before the court or even mention the name of this lady with whom her husband was allegedly set to marry.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder
War Thunder
Play Now
Undo
Ultimately the Calcutta High Court found her guilty of tarnishing her husband's reputation and analysed the Law of Torts and said, 'A man's reputation is his property and in certain cases, more valuable, than other properties.'
The Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench At Port Blair) held that the husband's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was violated due to her actions and hence as per the Law of Torts she is liable to pay compensation to him. The Calcutta High Court on April 11, 2025, ordered the wife to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation to the husband.
Live Events
Read below to know how the husband won this defamation case and what the Law of Torts says and how the husband's Article 21 rights were violated by the wife due to these defamatory public notices in the newspaper.
How did this case start?
According to the order of the Calcutta High Court dated April 11, 2025, here are the details:
March 2, 1994:
Marriage between the couple happens.
January 24, 1996:
A son is born out of their wedlock.
2005:
The matrimonial tie between the husband and wife broke and the husband sought divorce from his wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
2008:
The Trial Court grants divorce to the husband. Wife files an appeal against the order of the Trial Court in the Calcutta High Court, division bench.
December 3 and 5 of 2008:
Wife published two public notices alleging that she learnt from reliable sources about her husband's intention for 2nd marriage despite them not being divorced yet.
2011:
Calcutta High Court, division bench denies relief to the husband and allows the wife's appeal. The husband filed a civil appeal in Calcutta High Court against this order.
April 11, 2025:
Calcutta High Court finds wife guilty of defamation against her husband and orders her to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation for damages.
The wife's lawyers said she merely tried to inform everybody that she was still married with him and hence legally he could not do a 2nd marriage
According to the order of the Calcutta High Court, here's what the wife's lawyers said:
She did not have any intention to defame anybody and she did not have any ill-motive. The notice was published not to malign anybody.
The notice was published for the good of the society.
The wife had only tried to intimate and make aware through the said notice that there was subsistence of marriage between herself and her husband. She had only tried to make everybody aware that as he is married to her and there is a subsistence of the marriage so any further marriage by him could only give rise to the second marriage which is not acceptable in the eyes of law.
The husband's lawyers said he is a respectable government officer and these defamatory public notices tarnished his image before the public
According to the order of the Calcutta High Court, here are the details:
She has not been able to prove the source of the information on the basis of which notices were published on two dates.
In this instant case publishing a notice of marrying for the second time without divorce of the first marriage is not only illegal but also a social stigma, as such mentioning that he is trying to marry another girl surely tarnishes the image before the public.
In the written statement the name of one Devi has been mentioned but the same has not been corroborated by the wife in her evidence. This shows that the wife had no knowledge about the facts which have been published.
Neither has she been able to establish the fact that the attempt of marriage was true nor has been able to establish the source of such information.
The husband is a respectable person in the society and is holding the post of Assistant Engineer in a government department.
There are witnesses who have been deposed that the image of the husband has suffered a setback because of the said two notices published.
Calcutta High Court says: A man's reputation is his property and in certain cases, more valuable, than other properties
The Calcutta High Court said:
According to the law of Torts, defamation is an injury to the reputation of a person. If a person injures the reputation of another he does so at his own risk, as in the case of an interference with the property. A man's reputation is his property and in certain cases, more valuable, than other properties.
The essentials of defamation are
The statement must be defamatory;
The said statement must refer to the plaintiff;
The statement must be published.
In the present case, the allegation of going to marry for the second time during the subsistence of the first marriage amounts to general damages and is actionable per se.
In an action for defamation the plaintiff has to prove that the statement of which he complains, has been referred to him. It is immaterial that the defendant did not intend to defame the plaintiff. If from the statement published it can be reasonably inferred that the statement refers to the plaintiff, the defendant is nevertheless liable.
Publication means making the defamatory matter known to some person other than the person defamed, and unless that is done, no civil action for defamation lies. Communication to the plaintiff himself is not enough because defamation is injury to the reputation and reputation consists of the estimation in which others hold him and not a man's own opinion of himself.
In this present case the fulcrum are the two notices which are the same, published in the same daily newspaper on two different dates.
Calcutta High Court cross examines the wife and finds out she cannot prove the source of the information about her husband's 2nd marriage
The Calcutta High Court said:
During her examination- in chief she has time and again asserted the fact that it is not a fact that with a view to humiliate and/or defame the plaintiff, publication has been made in the newspaper by which the reputation of the plaintiff has been tarnished.
During her cross-examination she has admitted the fact that she did not prove the allegation of illicit relationship of her husband and has also stated that she does not know the name of the lady whom her husband was going to marry and she made endeavour to collect particulars of that lady but could not succeed even though she made paper publication.
She has also admitted that she has not mentioned the name of the person from whom she was informed that her husband was going to marry.
Thus, from the evidence of the wife it transpires that she has neither been able to disclose the name of the informant nor she has been able to name the alleged girl whom her husband is going to marry.
'Witnesses have deposed stating that in their view the reputation of the husband has degraded. Thus, there is ample proof of defamation,' said Calcutta High Court.
Calcutta High Court final judgement: Wife to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation for husband's reputation loss due to her defamatory public notice
The Calcutta High Court said:
This Court is of the view that damages to reputation through libel is hard to quantify but the other side of the coin is also the fact that each and every citizen of this country as per the provision laid down under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has the fundamental right to live with dignity.
In this present case, the wife has published a notice not only once but on two dates in a daily newspaper which according to herself has been published without having the knowledge of the informant and in addition in spite of her diligent efforts she has not been able to gather the information as regards to the name of the girl with whom she has entangled her husband that is Ramchander.
This according to a person of prudent thinking causes emotional distress to the person involving whom such news is circulated having no basis.
The Law of Torts does not have the power to put a person in incarceration but it has been empowered to award damages. To deter any person from spreading any baseless news defaming another person damages have been incorporated under the Law of Torts. Quantifying such amounts of damages acts as a deterrent factor and nothing more than that and it is imposed to keep the society intact.
The Calcutta High Court referred to this precedent to determine the compensation amount:
Bhim Singh Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Judgement:
'This Court is of the view that there being defamation of the husband by the wife the impugned order requires certain modification which is to the extent that the appellant/wife / has to Pay Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh) to the Respondent/Husband/ within three (3) months from this date.'
Arnaz Hathiram, Digital Media Professional, says: "Divorce proceedings of private individuals are personal matter. As a thumbrule, both parties must refrain from writing or publishing anything in media, while the matter is subjudice. The cost of Rs 1 lakh levied on a working independent wife may not really be penal for her. However, with this order, the Calcutta HC has surely set the tone for deterring either spouse from defaming the other in media."
What is the significance of this judgement?
ET Wealth Online has asked various legal experts about the significance of this judgement. Here's what they said:
Neelam Singh, Advocate on Record, Lucknow High Court:
The significance of this judgment is that a wife's act of publishing a public notice disclosing her husband's marital status was held to be defamatory. Her defense that it was done without malice and in public interest to warn other women was found legally unsustainable, amounting to tarnishing his reputation.
The judgment reinforces that imputations affecting an individual's character, when made publicly, constitute actionable defamation. In the present matter, the wife issued two public notices alleging her husband's intent to contract a void marriage, asserting such union would be illegal and confer no legal status. The husband instituted a civil suit for defamation against the wife and the editor. The Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench) decreed Rs 1 lakh in compensatory damages, holding the publication to be a reckless and malicious act, injurious to the plaintiff's reputation, and unsupported by lawful justification or privilege.
Aditya Chopra, Managing Partner, The Victoriam Legalis (TVL):
Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris:
The judgment sets a critical precedent that civil defamation laws apply within matrimonial relationships when one spouse publicly and falsely maligns the other. It opens the door for aggrieved individuals to seek compensation for reputational harm suffered due to defamatory acts by their partner, even if no criminal proceedings are involved. It also clarifies that freedom of expression does not extend to unverified public accusations, particularly when they tarnish an individual's public image. Going forward, this decision may deter parties from resorting to vindictive tactics like public notices or social media defamation during marital disputes, promoting more responsible conduct and legal recourse. This judgment sets a precedent that either of the party cannot defame the other party without any evidence. The Calcutta High Court has reinforced that personal reputation is a constitutionally protected facet of dignity under Article 21. It states that unsubstantial allegations when made in public can lead to serious legal consequences. The Court felt that intention behind the statement becomes irrelevant if the result is reputational harm.
Shashank Agarwal, Advocate, Delhi High Court:
The significance of this judgment lies in its ability to reduce such actions undertaken by the disgruntled parties to a dispute. This judgment clarifies what constitutes defamation and explains this concept with the facts of this case where the person who had issued a certain publication had no basis of his/her statements so published.