Delhi District Court
Rajesh vs Deepti on 23 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA JINDAL,
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-COMMERCIAL
CASES JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT
CONTROLLER, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA
COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No. : DLSW03-000723-2021
Rajesh v. Deepti
a) Civl Suit No. : 274/2021
b) Name & address of the : Sh. Rajesh
plaintiff S/o Sh.Gurbaksh Lal,
R/o D-80, Phase V, Om
Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New
Delhi 110059
c) Name & address of the : Smt. Deepti
defendant W/o Sh. Mohit Chopra,
D/o Sh. Pandit Bhagvir,
R/o In front of Kothi No.
10-A/5, Kali Mata Mandir,
Near Roshnara Club,
Shakti Nagar, New Delhi
110007
Date of Institution of Petition : 01.03.2021
Date of pronouncement of judgement : 23.02.2024
Suit for defamation & damages
JUDGEMENT
1. The Case:
1.1 . The defendant is the wife of nephew of the defendant/ maternal daughter-in-law of the plaintiff. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff received summons from the Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 1/33 Court alongwith Petition under Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 filed by the defendant containing defamatory allegations against the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Award the damages to the tune of Rs.
3,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 3 Lakhs on account of Loss of Reputation by the defendant and mental harassment by the defendant, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant,
(b) Award the cost of the proceedings including the Court fee and Fee of the Counsel for the plaintiff, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, &
(c) Pass any other relief or relief's which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the circumstances of the case."[Sic]
2. Plaintiff's Case:
2.1 . Pleaded case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff being a peace loving and law abiding citizen of India is running a shop of ladies tailor and part-time property dealer for the last more than 25 years and by dint of sheer hard work accompanied by excellence in the field of work, he has established a fine and impeccable reputation in the society. The work of plaintiff is public dealing and during the course of his work, he has to deal with large number of public men coming from various strata of the societies.
2.2 . In the last week of December 2020, in the evening, in the presence of all the family members of the plaintiff, nephew of plaintiff received the summons alongwith a copy of Petition under section 6 of Hindu Minority and Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 2/33 Guardianship Act, 1956 filed by defendant at Tis Hazari Court. Since it was a Court summons, everyone in the family was curious to know about its nature. The sister of the plaintiff namely Smt. Kiran Bala being the educated lady in the house, read the contents of the Petition.
2.3 . After knowing the contents of said Petition, the plaintiff and all family members were shocked as such the defendant had deliberately levelled false and frivolous allegations against the plaintiff without any basis with a view to cause damage to the plaintiff and to defame the image and reputation of the plaintiff which was actuated with malice intent so as to calculatedly cause irretrievable harm and damage to the reputation, name, fame and standing in the society of the plaintiff which he has painstakingly built over the years. The defendant has succeeded by damaging the reputation and image of the plaintiff, which facts are far from truth.
2.4 . Few of the false, frivolous and defamatory allegations levelled by defendant against the plaintiff without any basis are reproduced below :
Para no. 5 of the Petition:
"That the Maternal-father-in-law namely Shri Rajesh had evil eyes on the Petitioner and many times he tried to make illicit relation with the Petitioner. He extended threats at many times that he is the owner of the said house therefore had to accept his proposal of making illicit relation with him otherwise he would make the life of the Petitioner hell.......Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 3/33
Said Rajesh entered into the room of the Petitioner naked at many times and tried to hold the Petitioner but due to the resistance of the Petitioner, he could not succeed in his ill motive. Said Rajesh used to drink wine and beer by sitting in the room of the Petitioner and due to such nuisance, the Petitioner fell ill........"
Para no. 6 of the Petition "That on the occasion of Baisakhi i.e. on 13 th April 2017 at about 3:30 pm when the Petitioner was pregnant and was feeling unwell and she was lying on the cot in the room, said Rajesh entered into the room in a drunken estate and caught hold the Petitioner on the cot and tried to commit to rape over the Petitioner forcibly but the Petitioner not only made hue and cry in loud voice but also resisted and pushed him. Few neighbours gathered therefore, he could not succeed in his ill design."
Para no. 7 of the Petition "That on 23/07/2017 at about 11:00 am, the respondent along with his mother, Nani and Mama called the Petitioner inside the room at ground floor and directed her to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents house. The Petitioner politely refused to accept their illegal demand and told them that her parents had already spent a huge amount much more than their capacity in the marriage of Petitioner and now they are not in a position to fulfil their illegal demands. Hearing this, Rajesh directed the respondent to beat the Petitioner till the Petitioner expires. The said Rajesh, Mother and Nani of the respondent caught hold the Petitioner and fell her on bed. At the instance of said Rajesh, the respondent brought a knife (CHHURI) and started cutting the hands of the Petitioner........"
Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 4/33Para no. 20 of the Petition "That the mama of the respondent, Shri Rajesh always beats to the minor son of the Petitioner with legs. If the Petitioner raises any objection, he instigates to the husband of the Petitioner to bring money from her parents by beating to the Petitioner......."
Para no. 25 of the Petition "....... Then the Mama and Nani of the respondent directed the respondent to hold the Petitioner and finish the life of the Petitioner...... the mama of the respondent caught hold the hands of the Petitioner........"
Para no. 35 of the Petition ".......... Rajesh always abuses and quarrels in the family....."
2.5 . The defendant alongwith her parents even visited the house of common friends and family members and uttered bad words against the plaintiff to them with a view to further defame the plaintiff. Because of the defendant, the plaintiff has to face embarrassing situations. While going to public places, such as market etc., he has to hear disparaging remarks from the passerby. There has been a spate of such incidents due to which the plaintiff has to confine himself in his house and refrain from going to the public places and stopped picking phone calls.
2.6 . The aforesaid act of defendant has caused immeasurable mental agonies to the plaintiff and lowered down the reputation of the plaintiff in the society, amongst acquaintances, friends, relations and general public. The Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 5/33 plaintiff has to face social ostracism because of wrongful act of the defendant. The cumulative direct effect of the acts of the defendant as enumerated above is that the career and reputation of the plaintiff has been ruined and all his contributions to the society has been obliterated.
2.7 . The plaintiff is entitled to damages for defamation, mental torture, harassment, agony, humiliation, which he has suffered and is undergoing at present because of wrongful acts of the defendant and word of mouth being circulated originating from the acts of defendant. The plaintiff is entitled for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as damages on account of loss of reputation. The plaintiff is a resident of D-80, Phase-V, Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59 and is defamed more in his locality. Hence, this Court has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. No other case, suit or proceeding is pending between the parties to the suit before any Court of law.
2.8 . The plaintiff got issued a legal demand notice dated 05.02.2021 through his advocate on the address of the defendant as mentioned in the Memo of Parties through Speed Post and Registered AD. The legal notice was duly served upon the defendant. In the notice dated 05.02.2021, the plaintiff asked the defendant to tender her unconditional written apology or pay damages to the plaintiff within 7 days on receipt of said notice but till date neither apology has been tendered nor has any amount Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 6/33 been paid to the plaintiff. The said legal notice was neither replied nor complied by the defendant till date.
2.9 . With these pleadings, plaintiff prayed for reliefs as sought in the prayer clause of the plaint.
3. Upon service of summons of the suit, the defendant contested the present suit of the plaintiff and filed the written statement and the same was taken on record.
4. Defendant's Case:
4.1 . The defendant in its written statement has raised certain preliminary objections such as the instant suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as there is no cause of action and the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. This Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as the defendant is residing in the jurisdiction of Central district. The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant who is stated to be the maternal daughter in law of the plaintiff.
This being the matrimonial dispute, only the Family Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. The suit of the plaintiff is a bunch of lies and has been filed with malafide intention.
4.2 . It is contended in the written statement filed by the defendant that the house where the defendant alongwith her husband had been residing, is owned by the mother of Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 7/33 the plaintiff. The plaintiff always threatened that he is the owner of the house and he would kick out the defendant alongwith her husband if the defendant does not accept the proposal of the plaintiff and fulfill the desires of the plaintiff. Whenever defendant made complaint against the plaintiff with her husband and mother in law, they always advised the defendant to keep her mouth mum and obey the instructions of the plaintiff otherwise the plaintiff would kick them out from the house. The plaintiff had evil eyes on the defendant since the marriage. To achieve in his goal, the plaintiff adopted illegal means by creating pressure upon the defendant. The plaintiff abused the defendant and also used to beat the minor son of the defendant with legs sometimes on his stomach. Many times, plaintiff entered naked in the room of the defendant only to make illicit relations with her. The plaintiff used to remain in the room of the defendant till late night even after midnight.
4.3 . The plaintiff defamed the defendant by using filthy language against her, her parents, sister and brother. The plaintiff instigates the husband of the defendant to make calls to the relatives of the defendants thereby defaming and demoralising the reputation and image of the defendant, her parents, sister and brother-in-law (Jeeja) in their eyes. It is the defendant, who is entitled to get compensation from the plaintiff.
Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 8/334.4 . The defendant has filed Guardianship Petition for custody of her minor son pending before the Hon'ble Court at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The defendant has also filed a Petition under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (henceforth referred to as the 'DV Act') which is pending before the Hob'ble Court at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in which the plaintiff is one of the respondents. Further, defendant lodged a criminal complaint against her in-laws including the plainitff which is pending before Crime Against Women Cell, Subzi Mandi, Police Station, Delhi-110007. In the said complaint, Sh. Mohit Chopra has been appearing but instead of co-operating in the litigation, he has been extending threats of dire consequences, if the defendant does not withdraw the said complaint and Petitions.
4.5 . The said proceedings are at preliminary stage and the defendant will prove the same. It is a well settled law that unless and until, the allegations are found false or misconceived, no one can claim for defamation. The plantiff is aware about the pending cases but has wrongly mentioned in the plaint that no other case or proceedings are pending between the parties to the suit before any Court of law. The defendant has mentioned the real and correct facts about the acts, cruelties and atrocities as caused by the plaintiff against the defendant and her minor son, during her stay at her matrimonial home, in the Guardianship Petition, Petition under DV Act and in the Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 9/33 complaint which will be prove during trial before the Hon'ble Court.
4.6 . The plaintiff filed the present suit which is absolutely false, frivolous, fabricated and incorrect to create pressure upon the defendant to withdraw the abovesaid complaint and Petition to save his skin from clutches of law. The instant suit of the plaintiff is counter blast to the Petition filed by the defendant against the plaintiff and his other family members. The plaintiff has filed the present suit to create pressure and to terrorize the defendant. The notice dated 03.02.2021 was duly replied by the defendant through her counsel vide reply dated 23.02.2021 and sent on 27.02.2021.
5. Reply to the written statement filed by defendant 5.1 . The plaintiff did not file any reply to the written statment filed by the defendant. Vide order date 21.05.2022, the plaintiff submitted that he does not wish to file replication.
6. Issues 6.1 . Upon completion of pleadings, the following issues were identified vide order dated 03.09.2022 by Ld. Predecessor Court:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- to be paid by the defendant on account of mental agony caused to the plaintiff by defamatory remarks made in the Petition filed by the defendant ?
(OPP)
Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 10/33
(ii) Relief.
7. Plaintiff Evidence:
7.1 . To prove its case, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1
and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A bearing signatures at points A and B and relied upon the following documents:
i. Copy of Aadhar Card is Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR);
ii. Copy of summons alongwith Petition u/s 6 of Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act is Ex.PW-1/2 (Colly); (since admitted by the defendant in affidavit qua admission/denial of documents.) iii. Copy of legal notice dated 03.02.2021 is Ex. PW-1/3 and original postal receipts are Ex.PW-1/4 (colly);
iv. Copy of internet delivery reports are Mark A and Mark B. 7.2 . PW1 when cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant No. 1 deposed that he used to work as a tailor. Mohit is his nephew and defendant is his wife. When defendant got married to Mohit, he was staying in his house (D-80, Phase-5, Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59). Mohit had stayed in his house since his childhood and he has brought up Mohit like his child. After her marriage, defendant was staying with them in the aforementioned house. As is usual in any household, there used to be minor quarrels between Mohit and the defendant which sometimes were settled with his intervention. At that time, Mohit was working as a taxi driver and he did not have any regular work hours. He Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 11/33 used to go outstation whenever he got clients/customers. It never happened that Mohit had gone for the whole night.
7.3 . PW-1 deposed that defendant never quarreled with him.
She treated him like her own father and PW1 treated her as his daughter. They had gone to defendant's parental home where she was temporarily staying and with the consent of everybody defendant's family had sent her back to her matrimonial house. Again said, his mother along with Mohit had gone to defendants parental home. Defendant used to do household work. Their house consists of three rooms. There is a distance of 5 feet between his room and the room of the defendant. His nephew Mohit had received a summons of Petition under section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act in the month of December 2020 from the Hon'ble Court of Tis Hazari. He had never asked the defendant as to why she had levelled allegations against him. He did not meet the parents of defendant between December 2022 to February 2021 with regard to allegations levelled by her against him. (He volunteered to depose that except for two occasions, he never used to visit the parental house of the defendant).
7.4 . PW-1 further deposed that he never gave any complaint to any authority that defendant had levelled false allegations against him. After December 2020, Mohit had tried talking to defendant and convince her to return to their house, however, defendant's mother was adamant and wanted that none of them talks to the defendant. Initially, Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 12/33 he used to do tailoring services under the name of Jagadamba Tailor. However, on account of his weak vision, he discontinued tailoring work and thereafter, he had a general store in one part of his house. In the remaining portion of his house, other members of their family were residing. He did not have any formal business name for the property dealing work that he used to do in his part time. He has never had been honoured or conferred any award by any organization for doing exceptional work. He had once got receipt book of Jagadamba tailor made. He did not have any trademark for Jagadamba Tailor. He is not an income tax payee.
7.5 . PW-1 also deposed that he had gotten married but his wife does not live with him. He had not made any application in the Tis Hazari Court where guardianship Petition of defendant was being adjudicated in which allegations were levelled against him as he could not believe that defendant who he treated as his daughter had levelled such false allegations against him. He did not know if Mohit had replied to the aforementioned Petition. (He volunteered to depose that he got to know about the allegations levelled against him and the same were made by the defendant at the instance of her mother who blackmailed him into giving her money). Mohit told him about the allegations levelled against him because of which he has filed the instant case against her. Defendant's mother had suggested to him to give money to the defendant. She had told me "Iske liye kuch karo" around Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 13/33 three years back. She had told Mohit that he should think about either giving Rs. 15 lakhs to the defendant or give the house to her. He has appeared 2-3 times before a Court in Tis Hazari where defendant has filed DV Act case against them.
7.6 . PW-1 denied to the suggestions put by Ld. Counsel for defendant that the instant case has been filed by the PW1 to pressurize defendant to withdraw the cases that she had filed against Mohit; that he could not speak with the defendant qua her allegations against him as the same were true; that the mother of the defendant never contacted him to give money to the defendant; that the instant case is premature as the allegations levelled by the defendant are yet to be decided by the Courts; that the instant case has been filed by him to pressurise the defendant to withdraw her cases; that he is a habitual drinker and he consume liquor while sitting in the room of the defendant and on her bed and he used to exhale smoke on defendants face. (He volunteered to depose that the only times when he used to go to defendant's room was for watching television and that time their entire family including four kids and multiple adults used to be there in her room.
7.7 . PW-1 agreed to the suggestions put by Ld. Counsel for defendant that there was a dispute between Mohit and defendant for which a complaint was also given to CAW Cell, Subzi Mandi by the defendant; that defendant did not misbehave with PW1 after she rejoined the matrimonial Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 14/33 home; that the house was in his name; that once or twice in a year, he consume one or two pegs of alcohol. (He volunteered to depose that this happens only when somebody requests him and there is an occasion.); that the cases filed by the defendant against them have not attained finality as yet and are pending adjudication; that the defendant has preferred complaints against them in respective Courts, however, she has not made them known to any other member of the public.
7.8 . Plaintiff's evidence was closed vide order dated 19.10.2023. The matter was then posted for defendant's evidence.
8. Defendant Evidence 8.1 . To rebut the case of the plaintiff, defendant examined herself as DW-1 and HC Devender Kumar as DW-2. DW1 tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.DW-1/A which bears her signatures at points A and B. 8.2 . DW-1 when cross-examined deposed that she knew the contents of her affidavit which is Ex. DW-1/A. All the paragraphs in the said affidavit were based upon her knowledge. No paragraph of her affidavit is based upon her belief. She can read and write English. The words 'cause of action' as mentioned in para number three means "Kaaran". She has been using mobile phone even before her marriage. She is residing in Kali Mata Mandir as her father is a priest. She has been residing separately from the Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 15/33 plaintiff since 16.10.2020 (She volunteered to depose that since she has been kicked out by the plaintiff.). She has not met the plaintiff since 16.10.2020. The mother of the plaintiff, plaintiff and sister of the plaintiff were residing in the house along with herself, her son and her husband. Smt. Kiran Bala, Smt. Veena, Smt. Poonam are the sisters of the plaintiff. Matrimonial disputes between her and her husband is going on since the date of her marriage (She volunteered to depose that it's all because of plaintiff).
8.3 . DW-1 further deposed that she has been residing separately from her husband since 16.10.2020. She made her first complaint after separation on 21.10.2020 (She volunteered to depose that she has also made a complaint against her husband when he abducted her child.). She also complained to CAW Cell, Subzi Mandi within one week of separation. She filed a Guardianship Petition first after separation in the court. She engaged the private counsel 1- 2 days before filing of the Petition of guardianship in the Court. She came to know from the police official that the FIR has been registered on her aforesaid complaint to CAW Cell. She did not have the copy of FIR or its number. She got drafted her CAW Cell complaint through his counsel on her narration. The copy of FIR 296/2022, PS Roop Nagar under section 406/498A/34IPC is Ex. DW-1/B (OSR).
8.4 . DW-1 denied to the suggestions put by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the plaintiff is not the owner of the house.
Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 16/33Again said, the said house belongs to the mother of the plaintiff; that after the separation, she contacted the common friends and other family members of her husband; that she had not made any allegations against the plaintiff in her first complaint to CAW Cell which was made within one year of her marriage; that till date no action has been taken against the plaintiff on her false and frivolous complaints; that she has deliberately not brought her first complaint given to CAW Cell as there was no allegations against the plaintiff in it; that since the allegations against the plaintiff were found to be false during the investigation by the police and hence was not registered under section 354 IPC or 509 IPC or 376/511 IPC; that plaintiff got shocked after hearing false and frivolous allegations levelled against plaintiff in guardianship Petition or that the allegations are manipulated and false or that she had levelled allegations against the plaintiff without any basis with a view to cause damage to the plaintiff or that plaintiff treated her like his daughter during her stay with plaintiff or that plaintiff neither abused nor beaten her or her son nor threatened her nor demanded anything from her at any point of time; that the plaintiff never instigated her husband; that she had caused harm and damage to the reputation name, fame and standing of the plaintiff in the society or that she had caused mental torture, harassment, agony and humiliation to the plaintiff by making false allegations; that she had left the house on her own without any fault of the plaintiff; that she had levelled false allegations against the plaintiff Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 17/33 including other family members after consultation and deliberation.
8.5 . DW-1 agreed to the suggestions put by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that her family is poor; that she had not made any allegations against the plaintiff in her complaint dated 21.10.2020. (She volunteered to depose that she did not make any allegation against the plaintiff in her complaint dated 21.10.2020 as it was only against the abduction of the child by her husband).
8.6 . DW-2/ HC Devender Kumar brought the original summoned record in respect of complaint dated 04.12.2017 bearing no. 486/2017 filed on 07.12.2017 made by Deepti (defendant) against Mohit Chopra and Others. The photocopy of said complaint is Ex. DW-2/1. (OSR) (colly. Running into six pages). DW1 when cross examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff admitted that no action was taken on the above said complaint and the said complaint was withdrawn by the complainant.
8.7 . Defendant's evidence was closed vide order dated 04.12.2023. The matter was then posted for final arguments.
9. Final Arguments 9.1 . Submissions on behalf of plaintiff 9.1.1 . During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff relied upon the contents of the plaint and Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 18/33 Petition under Section 6 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 to state that the allegations levelled by the defendant are clearly defamatory remarks, which is far from truth. The defendant has exposed herself to financial implication on account of damages for defamation and mental agony. It was argued that the plaintiff has been able to prove all the ingredients of civil defamation and the case of the defendant does not fall within any of the exceptions in a suit for defamation. The defendant did not tender any apology to the plaintiff for the defamatory remarks in the said Petition. Finally, it was prayed that the present suit be decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
9.2 . Submissions on behalf of defendants 9.2.1 . It was argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. This being the matrimonial dispute, only Family Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. All the facts mentioned in the pending Petitions including Petition under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 are true and correct and the same shall be proved during the course of trial. Finally, it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with cost.
10 . Heard the final arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Ld. Counsel for defendant. This Court has carefully perused the evidence on record in light of the Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 19/33 pleadings of the parties and considered the oral submissions advanced by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Ld. Counsel for defendant.
11 . Appreciation and findings The issues are adjudicated as under:
11.1 . Issue no. (i):
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- to be paid by the defendant on account of mental agony caused to the plaintiff by defamatory remarks made in the Petition filed by the defendant ? (OPP) 11.1.1 . The onus to prove this Issue was upon the plaintiff.
11.1.2 . It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is a resident of D-80, Phase-V, Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59 and is defamed more in his locality. Hence, this Court has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. The defendant however has disputed the territorial jurisdiction on the ground that the defendant is residing in the jurisdiction of Central District. The onus was thus upon the defendant to prove the same. Neither any evidence has been led nor any law/ case law has been cited to prove the same. Mere averments would not tantamount to proof of the same. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for defendant that this being the matrimonial dispute, only Family Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit does not hold good as the present suit is a suit claiming damages for defamation and there is no aspect of Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 20/33 matrimonial dispute covered in the present case for the purposes of relief sought by plaintiff in the instant case.
11.1.3 . The claim of the plaintiff rested on the premise that the plaintiff established a fine and impeccable reputation in the society. In the last week of December 2020, the nephew of the plaintiff received summons of the Court alongwith Petition under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, filed by the defendant against the plaintiff containing defamatory allegations against the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued legal demand notice dated 05.02.2021, through his advocate to the defendant to tender her unconditional apology or pay damages to the plaintiff. However, neither apology has been tendered nor damages have been paid. Hence, the plaintiff brought the present suit against the defendant.
11.1.4 . Per contra, it has been contended by defendant in its written statement that the defendant has mentioned the real and correct facts about the acts, cruelties and atrocities as caused by plaintiff against the defendant and her minor son, during her stay at her matrimonial home, in the Guardianship Petition, Petition under DV Act and in the complaint which will be proved during the trial. The instant suit of the plaintiff is counter blast to the Petition filed by the defendant against the plaintiff and his other family members.Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 21/33
11.1.5 . It is well known that there is no statutory law of civil defamation in India although the criminal aspect of it is covered under Section 499/500 IPC. Civil defamation is categorized into two types viz., Libel and Slander. Since the instant suit pertains to defamation done by Libel, the plaintiff ought to prove the ingredients of defamation by way of Libel i.e., (i) That it refers to him; (ii) That it is in writing (iii) That it is defamatory (iv) That it was published by the defendant to a third person.
11.1.6 . The defendant who is stated to be the maternal daughter in law of the plaintiff/ wife of nephew of the plaintiff has admittedly made allegations on as many as six occasions in the Petition under Section 6 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 filed by the defendant against Sh. Mohit who is stated to be the nephew of the plaintiff/ husband of the defendant. The allegations made by the defendant against the plaintiff in the said Petition has been detailed out in the plaint. Copy of summons alongwith the Petition under Section 6 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act has been placed on record as Ex. PW-1/2 (Colly). Ex. PW-1/2 has been admitted by the defendant in affidavit qua admission/ denial of documents.
11.1.7 . The alleged defamatory remarks against the plaintiff in the said Petition Ex.PW-1/2 (Colly) in a nut shell is that the plaintiff has evil eyes on the defendant and many times he tried to make illicit relations with the defendant and Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 22/33 also extended threats to accept his proposal of making illicit relations with him. Plaintiff entered the room of the defendant naked many times and tried to hold the defendant. Plaintiff used to bring wine and beer by sitting in the room of the defendant and due to such nuisance, the defendant fell ill. On the occasion of Baisakhi i.e., on 13.04.2017 at about 03:30 PM when the defendant was pregnant, plaintiff entered into the room in a drunken state and caught hold of the defendant on the cot and tried to commit rape over the defendant forcibly. The plaintiff directed the husband of the defendant to beat the defendant till she expires. At the instance of the plaintiff, the husband of defendant brought a knife and started cutting the hands of the defendant. The plaintiff always beats the minor son of the defendant with legs. If the defendant raises any objection, plaintiff instigates the husband of the defendant to bring money from her parents by beating the defendant.
The plaintiff caught hold the hands of the defendant. The plaintiff always abuses and quarrels in the family.
11.1.8 . In the instant case also, the defendant has made similar allegations against the plaintiff in the written statement as she has made in the Petition under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. It is alleged by the defendant in the written statement that the plaintiff always threatened that he is the owner of the house and he would kick out the defendant alongwith her husband if the defendant does not accept the proposal of the plaintiff and fulfill the desires of the plaintiff. The Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 23/33 plaintiff has evil eyes on the defendant since the marriage. The plaintiff abused the defendant and also used to beat the minor son of the defendant with legs sometimes on his stomach. Many times, plaintiff entered naked in the room of the defendant only to make illicit relations with her. The plaintiff used to remain in the room of the defendant till late night even after midnight.
11.1.9 . It is averred that in the written statement that it is well settled law that unless and until, the allegations are found false or misconceived, no one can claim for compensation. However, the defendant has not been able to prove any of the allegations levelled in the instant suit against the plaintiff. Neither any independent witness stepped into the witness box nor any documentary evidence was placed on record to prove the allegations levelled by the defendant in the written statement. In fact, defendant was not able to elicit any admission by the plaintiff who stepped into the witness box as PW-1 during his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
11.1.10 . It is worth mentioning here that the Hon'ble Court wherein the Petition under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is pending between the defendant and her husband will never have the occasion to decide the allegations levelled by the defendant against the plaintiff as the allegations in the said Petition is irrelevant to the relief of the custody of her child as sought by the defendant in the said Petition.
Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 24/3311.1.11 . It is the case of the defendant that the parties herein are in the matrimonial litigation with each other. It is stated in the written statement that the defendant has filed Guardianship Petition for her minor son. The defendant has also filed a Petition under Section 12 of DV Act. Further, defendant lodged a criminal complaint against her in laws which is pending before Crime Against Women Cell, Subzi Mandi, Police Station, Delhi-110007. The plaintiff in its plaint has stated that no other case, suit or proceeding is pending between the parties to the suit before any Court of law. However, the plaintiff during his cross examination deposed that he has appeared 2-3 times before a Court in Tis Hazari where defendant has filed DV Act case against them. The plaintiff also agreed to the suggestion put by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that there was a dispute between husband of the defendant and defendant for which a complaint was given to CAW Cell, Subzi Mandi by the defendant. The plaintiff also agreed to the suggestion that the cases filed by the defendant against them have not attained finality as yet and are pending adjudication. No doubt that the parties herein are in litigation with each other.
11.1.12 . Although, the parties herein are in litigation with each other, however, it is not the case of the defendant that she has filed a criminal case against the plaintiff for the allegations made in the Petition under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. As serious as Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 25/33 rape allegations have been made by the defendant against the plaintiff in the said Petition. There is no reason whatsoever on behalf of defendant that when she was so much harassed by the defendant, why did she not file any complaint against the plaintiff for the said allegations. The allegation of rape can in no way be made casually in any Petition specially when the plaintiff is not a party to the said Petition and no relief is sought against the plaintiff.
11.1.13 . It is not the case of the defendant that the alleged defamatory remarks in the Petition under Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 did not refer to the plaintiff rather it is the case of the defendant that real and correct facts have been mentioned in the pending Petitions and the same shall be proved during the course of trial. Thus, the two ingredients of defamation by way of libel i.e., (i) That it refers to him and (ii) That it is in writing; stands satisfied. Since, the alleged defamatory remarks were made in the Petition, they were apparently meant to be read by third party persons. Hence, the third ingredient of defamation by way of libel i.e., (iv) That it was published by the defendant to a third person; stands satisfied. A plain reading of the alleged defamatory remarks shows that they are per se defamatory on their face when seen and evaluated in the context that the plaintiff herein is not a party to the said Petition, no relief is sought by the defendant against the plaintiff in the said Petition and such allegations were unnecessary/ irrelevant to the relief sought by the defendant in the said Petition.
Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 26/33Thus, the fourth ingredient of defamation by way of libel i.e., (iii) That it is defamatory; stands satisfied. In such circumstances, the only point to be decided by this Court, for decision of this case, is as to whether the defamatory remarks made in the Petition under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 on different occasions, tantamounts to such a civil defamation which entitles the plaintiff to seek damages.
11.1.14 . As per the definition, the defamation in Paramiter v.
Coupland (1840) 6 M & W 105 at 108, defamation by Libel is defined as, "A publication... which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule." Further, as per Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swami 2006 AIR (Delhi) 300 observed that defamation is a public communication which tends to injure the reputation of another. What statements are defamatory and a span of defences varies from jurisdiction to jurisdictions but there is common agreement in all jurisdictions that statements that are unflattering, annoying, irksome, embarrassing or hurt one's feelings are not actionable. Common elements in all jurisdictions is the potential to injure the reputation.
11.1.15 . Applying the text of all the defamatory remarks as mentioned in the Petition under Section of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 to the above definition of defamation, it is evident that they are Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 27/33 defamatory in nature and have potential to injure the reputation of plaintiff. It is a settled legal proposition that in a civil suit for damages under defamation, the defendant primarily has two defences i.e., (i) truth or justification and
(ii) privilege. As far as the defence of truth is concerned, the defendant has neither placed any documentary evidence on record nor have led any oral evidence to show that the allegations contained in the statements made in the Petition under Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 are Truth or Justified. Mere reassertion or reproduction of these allegations by the defendant in their evidence does not tantamount to proof thereof. As such in the absence of any iota of evidence to show that those allegations were true or correct, this Court is of the considered review that the defendant has failed to justify either of the defamatory statement made in the said Petition.
11.1.16 . So far as the defence of Privilege is concerned, it is once again relevant to mention the case of Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swami 2006 AIR (Delhi) 300 wherein it was held that the absolute privilege in civil defamation is not absolute in the context of being infinite. Even when the occasion is Privileged, one gets no license to utter irrelevant and scandalous things unrelated to the proceedings. If what is stated is necessary or relevant to the proceedings immunity would be absolute.
Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 28/3311.1.17 . In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the plaintiff was not party to the Petition in which the defendant made defamatory statements. The statements were absolutely irrelevant and it appears that they were made out of malice. It is not the case of the defendant that the defendant was compelled to make such defamatory statement against the plaintiff in her Petition and it was entirely within her own discretion to incorporate statements in the Petition. It is evident from the record that multiple litigations are pending between the parties and they primarily relate to matrimonial disputes. Even if the defendant was desirous of establishing the allegations made in the said Petition, she could have made her plea by simply stating it plainly. Instead of confining herself to the necessary basic pleadings, defendant rather took it as an opportunity to defame the plaintiff/ her maternal father in law. By no stretch of logic or interpretation, any of the statements incorporated by the defendant in her Petition under Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 can be said to be relevant for the just decision of the said Petition. Thus, the plea of absolute privilege cannot be successfully raise in the present case as the statements made on different occasions in the said Petition were not relevant for the proper decision of the matter wherein they were so made.
11.1.18 . Since, all the ingredients required to be proved for defamation by way of Libel has been fulfilled in the present case, the case of the defendant does not fall within Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 29/33 any of the exceptions to defamation by way of Libel and considering the fact that the defendant has not been able to cite or prove any cogent reasons for making defamatory allegations against the plaintiff in the said Petition, it can be safely said that such allegations were made with malice and ill will against the plaintiff. It appears that but for the pending matrimonial litigation in which the plaintiff is also a party, the plaintiff would not have included those defamatory remarks in the Petition under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
11.1.19 . As such in the considered view of this Court, the defendant is not entitled to any of the defences of the defamation by way of Libel. Having so concluded, since this Court has already found that all the four ingredients of the defamation by way of Libel is already satisfied, the defendant has exposed himself to be held financially liable to compensate the plaintiff/ maternal father in law for defamation. This Court shall now proceed to determine as to the quantum of damages for defamation and mental agony as prayed for by the plaintiff.
11.1.20 . As far as quantum of damages is concerned, the plaintiff has pleaded in his plaint that the plaintiff is entitled for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as damages on account of loss of reputation. The plaintiff in order to show his reputation has pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff is running a shop of ladies tailor and part time property dealer for the last more than 25 years. By dint of sheer Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 30/33 hard work accompanied by excellence in the field of work, he has established a fine and impeccable reputation in the society. Plaintiff when stepped into the Witness Box as PW-1 deposed that he used to do tailoring services under the name of Jagdamba Tailor. However, on account of his weak vision, he discontinued tailoring work and thereafter, he had a General Store in one part of h is house. He did not have any formal business name for the property dealing work that he used to do in his part time. He has never been honoured or conferred any award by any organization for doing exceptional work.
11.1.21 . The plaintiff neither in his pleadings nor during his course of evidence disclosed his income. However, during his cross examination he deposed that he is not an income tax assesse. The plaintiff in fact made no attempt to establish that after the plaintiff filed the Petition u/s 6 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 containing the defamatory remarks, the earnings of the defendant suffered a dip. In fact, the plaintiff did not lead any evidence in terms of the mental agony so pleaded. It appears that the plaintiff merely speculated the quantum of damages to Rs. 3,00,000/-. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention the case decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ram Jeithmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy decided on 03.01.2006, AIR 2006 Delhi 300, wherein it was observed ".........Damages awarded are recompense to the loss of honour and reputation.
Inherently, quantification is the problem as Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 31/33 honour and reputation are inherently incapable of being valued in terms of value. More often than not, the loss of honour and reputation lowers the image of the person in the eyes of his friends and relatives and he suffers social isolation.......".
11.1.22 . Although, there is no substantial evidence led in the present case with respect to quantum of damages, however since this court has already found that all the ingredients of defamation by way of libel has been satisfied and the present case does not fall within any of the exception of defamation, it can be safely said that the image and reputation of the plaintiff would have been lowered in the esteem of the public. Plaintiff would thus, be entitled to some recompense on account of defamation.
11.1.23 . Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the entire material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the just claim of the plaintiff would be met when the plaintiff is held entitled to damages to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Since the plaint has not recorded the prayer for interest, no interest on the said amount can be awarded. The aforesaid amount is the lumpsum amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff on account of damages.
11.1.24 . In view of the foregoing reasons, both the Issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 32/3312 . Relief 12.1 . In view of the aforesaid appreciation and findings, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is held entitled to a lumpsum damages of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) from the defendant.
12.2 . Costs of the suit is awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
13 . Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
14 . File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.02.23 18:16:42 +0530 Pronounced in the (Anuradha Jindal) open Court on 23.02.2024. ACJ-CCJ-ARC, South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi Civil Suit No. 274/2021 Rajesh v. Deepti Page 33/33