Madras High Court
Vijayalakshmi vs J.Ravi Shankar on 16 December, 2020
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash
CRL.O.P.No.16633 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 11.12.2020
PRONOUNCED ON : 16.12.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
CRL.O.P.No.16633 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Vijayalakshmi .. Petitioner
Vs.
J.Ravi Shankar .. Respondent
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records in C.C.No.2454 of 2015 pending on the file of the
learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Saidapet, Chennai and to quash
the same
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudharsan
For Respondent : Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan
for Mr.V.Raghavachari
ORDER
For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their names.
http://www.judis.nic.in 1/7 CRL.O.P.No.16633 of 2015
2. Ravi Shankar (complainant) is a practicing advocate. Vijalakahsmi (accused) is a physically challenged person, her leg being afflicted by polio. Sometime in 1995, they loved each other and got married without the knowledge of their parents and thereafter, their marriage become public. Even after 15 years of marriage, they were issue less. This caused thaw in their matrimonial relationship, resulting in they getting estranged.
2.1. Vijayalakshmi learnt that Ravi Shankar remarried one Radhika on 21.10.2010 in a temple, begot a test tube baby on 06.02.2014 and named him Lalit Saravanan. Ravi Shankar's sister is one 'X', who is a judicial officer in Tamil Nadu and his father is a retired police officer.
2.2. It is the grievance of Vijayalakshmi that, after she was thrown out of the matrimonial home, Ravi Shankar's father and sister used their official position to get him married to Radhika secretly. Therefore, she wrote a complaint to the Registrar General, High Court, Madras with a copy to the police, seeking justice.
http://www.judis.nic.in 2/7 CRL.O.P.No.16633 of 2015 2.3. According to Ravi Shankar, Vijayalakshmi had sent copies of her representation dated 13.01.2015 to all his relatives, friends and neighbours and thereby had defamed him, by calling him impotent. Therefore, Ravi Shankar issued a legal notice dated 24.01.2015, for which Vijayalakshmi sent a reply letter dated 07.02.2015, in her own hand directly to Ravi Shankar. In that reply, she has stated that, she being a physically challenged person, did not know where to go for justice, especially, when Ravi Shankar's sister herself is a judicial officer and his father is a retired police officer.
2.4. However, Ravi Shankar initiated a prosecution in C.C.No.2454 of 2015 in the Court of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet under Section 499 and 500 IPC against Vijayalakshmi, for quashing which, Vijayalakshmi is before this Court.
3. Heard Mr.N.Sudharsan, learned counsel for Vijayalakshmi and Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel representing Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel on record for Ravi Shankar. http://www.judis.nic.in 3/7 CRL.O.P.No.16633 of 2015
4. Mr.Lakshmi Narayanan submitted that if a wife alleges impotency against her husband, it would undoubtedly amount to defamation and in support of this proposition, he placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in 'X' Vs. 'Y' (Criminal Application [APL] No.774 of 2017 decided on 02.11.2018). He also submitted that Vijayalakshmi ought not to have sent a copy of the complaint to the relatives and friends of Ravishankar. This act of her's had lowered the estimation of Ravishankar in the eyes of others.
5. Per contra, Mr.Sudharsan contended that for 15 years, the couple was issue less and Ravishankar secretly got remarried to Radhika, begot a test tube baby, which he has not denied anywhere, only shows that there was truth in the contention of Vijayalakshmi.
6. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.
7. This is not a run-of-the-mill defamation case. Here, a physically challenged girl who got married to an advocate, has been left in the lurch to fend for herself. Ravishankar is no ordinary person. His sister http://www.judis.nic.in 4/7 CRL.O.P.No.16633 of 2015 is a Judicial Officer and his father was a police officer. In the representation dated 13.01.2015, Vijayalakshmi has not made any direct imputation that her husband is impotent. The alleged defamatory portion in the letter dated 13.01.2015, reads as under :
“jpUkzkhfp 6tJ khjk; Kjy; gy kUj;Jtkid brd;Wk; 14 tUlkhf FHe;ijapy;yhky; ,Ue;njhk;. ,jw;fpilapy; FHe;ijapy;iy vd;gjhy; vd; khkpahh;/ khkdhh;/ vd; ehj;jdhh; rhe;jp vy;nyhUk; nrh;e;J vd; fztUf;F 2tJ jpUkzk; bra;J itf;Fk;go Twpdhh;fs;. ehd; mjw;F rk;kjk; bjhptpf;fhjjhy;/ vdf;Fk; vd; fztUf;Fk; mof;fo gpur;ridfs; tUtJk;/ vd; fzth; vdf;F tpthfuj;J gj;jpuk; mDg;g[tJ tHf;fkhf ,Ue;jJ.
vd; fztUf;F Mz;ik FiwghL cs;sJ vd;Wk;/ mjw;fhd rpfpr;ir vLj;jhy; kl;Lnk FHe;ij bgw;Wf; bfhs;s Koa[k; vd;W Twpdhh;fs;. ehDk; vd; fzth; nky; itj;jpUe;j md;gpd; fhuzkhf ,e;j tp#aj;ij ahhplKk; brhy;yhky; rpfpr;ir bgw;W te;njhk;.” A reading of the above shows that, the couple had been shuttling between various hospitals since their marriage for medically addressing the issue, but in vain. In the above paragraph, she has stated that, “people say that, only if her husband takes medical treatment for curing his impotency, they can beget a child”. In the next line, she has stated that “on account of the love she had for her husband, she did not tell this to anyone, but was taking treatment.”
8. The fact remains that Ravishankar has not denied the http://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 CRL.O.P.No.16633 of 2015 allegation of Vijayalakshmi that he remarried Radhika secretly on 21.10.2010 and begot a test tube baby on 06.02.2014. Perhaps he could not deny it, as Vijayalakshmi was having clinching evidence for this. In fact, she had enclosed a copy of the birth certificate of Baby Lalit Saravanan along with the impugned letter dated 13.01.2015 that has been sent to the Registrar, High Court, Madras. The judgment relied upon by Mr.Lakshmi Narayanan, will not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.2454 of 2015 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, is hereby quashed.
16.12.2020 gya To The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet P.N.PRAKASH, J.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 CRL.O.P.No.16633 of 2015 gya CRL.O.P.No.16633 of 2015 16.12.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7