Bangalore District Court
Neena Ananth Nayak vs Ambika G Nayak on 28 March, 2026
KABC010046622016
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-38), BANGALORE CITY.
:PRESENT:
Smt. Nirmala Devi. S. B.Sc., LL.B.,
LI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY.
DATED This the 28th day of March 2026
O.S. NO. 1576/2016
PLAINTIFF/S 1. SMT. NEENA ANANTH NAYAK
W/o. MR. ANANTH NAYAK ADYAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.7 AND 8, ABHISHEK,
4TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
ASHRAM ROAD, ASHRAM COLONY,
SANJAYNAGAR, RMV II STAGE,
BANGALORE 94.
2: SRI. ANANTH NAYAK ADYAR,
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY
PLAINTIFF NO.1.
(Pl By Sri. H.N.N.N., Advocate)
Versus
DEFENDANT/S SMT. AMBIKA G NAYAK
W/O. MR. GANESH S. NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
O.S.No. 1576/2016
2
R-AT NO.4-173A, EKAA,
LAXMINDRA NAGAR, 7TH CROSS,
KUNJIBETTU POST, UDUPI,
KARNATAKA 576 102.
(Df By Sri. SM, Adv.)
Date of Institution of the suit 23.02.2016
Nature of suit Damages & Injunction suit
Date of commencement 06.02.2018
of recording of evidence.
Date on which judgment
was pronounced. 28.03.2026
Total Duration. Years Months Days
10 01 05
LI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
C/c. XXXVII ACCJ, BANGALORE
O.S.No. 1576/2016
3
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed to direct the defendant to pay Rs. 1 Crore as damages for having slandered and defamed the plaintiffs causing reputation loss and severe mental trauma and for permanent injunction.
2. The brief case of the plaintiffs are as follows:-
The plaintiffs are the residents of Bengaluru. Ist plaintiff was born at Karawar and brought up at Udupi District where she persued her education. She married the plaintiff No.2 on 27.12.2002. She is a Home maker and leading respectable life and well respected in her family, her social and societal circle.
Second plaintiff was born and brought up at Mangaluru, he persued his education at Mangaluru and Manipal and he is a duly qualified Bachelor of Engineering. Currently he is working as a business development and Technology marketing consultant for a European company having niche technologies. He is a well established professional and sought after in the relevant industry for his skills, sets and efficiencies. The plaintiff No.2 is leading a respectable life and well respected in his family, profession and social/societal circles.
O.S.No. 1576/2016 4
3. The plaintiffs have been living in Bengaluru since December 2002. They often visit Mangaluru and Udupi being their respective home towns. Though they are married for over 13 years, they are childless couple. Except for that void in their family life they have been leading a happy married life true companion ship, mutual trust and belief.
4. The defendant is a resident of Manipal and married to one Ganesh S. Nayak and having 2 sons from their marriage of 14 years. Ist plaintiff and defendant were acquainted since their early childhood days. But merely met occasionally, accompanied by their respective families at some of the events held by Loins Club, Udupi. During the wedding of a common friend Ms. Lavina in the year 2000, first plaintiff met the defendant after a long time. Thereafter they became friends and started meeting at a regular basis. At that time they were unmarried. The first plaintiff attended the betrothal ceremony of defendant, but could not attend the wedding held in February 2002. During the said time, for the first time the first plaintiff met with defendant's husband Ganesh S. Nayak. After the wedding of defendant, the first plaintiff and defendant have last touch with each other. First plaintiff got married on 27.12.2002. Though she invited O.S.No. 1576/2016 5 the defendant for the wedding, but she could not attend the wedding as she was advised bed rest as post delivery of her first child. They did not maintain contact with each other until the year 2013.
5. Through social network media such as Face book, personal communication tools like Whatsapp, the first plaintiff and defendant re-established their contact around mid 2013. The first plaintiff also visited the defendant's residence in Manipal for the first time in December 2013 for get together with common friends and collage mates. Thus for second time she met with defendant's husband Ganesh S. Nayak. The defendant remained in regular contact over phone with plaintiff No.1 and apart from discussions of general matters, the defendant indicate that she had marital problems with her husband.
6. During May 2014 the first plaintiff and defendant met in Bengaluru for the first time and thereafter in July 2014. They also met in June 2014 at Udupi. The defendant met with the first plaintiff and her sister during the end of July 2014 and informed the first plaintiff that she was keen to meet plaintiff No.2 to discuss some cases related to certain properties in Manipal. Accordingly she was invited to the residence of O.S.No. 1576/2016 6 plaintiffs at Sanjay nagar, Bengaluru. She visited the plaintiffs residence on the same day, but she was in a highly inebriated condition, no discussions relating to property cases took place. Thus for the first time plaintiff No.2 met the defendant. During the said visit the defendant confessed that she is having extra marital affair with some one from Mandya associated with certain right wing Hindu outfits. Then the plaintiff advised her to put an end to her debaucherious activities at least in the interest of her two children. Thereafter they dropped the defendant to the lodge situated at Ghandhi nagar, Bengaluru where she claimed to have been put up. On the following day the defendant called the first plaintiff to meet with her. But the first plaintiff tried to avoid meeting the defendant. But at the repeated insistence of defendant, she reluctantly met the defendant along with her sister Ms. Neetha. During the said meeting she assured the plaintiff No.1 that she would immediately bring an end to her debaucherious activities.
7. The plaintiff No.1 and her brother Mr. Nitesh Kini met the defendant and her husband at the residence of defendant during mid August 2014 as her brother wanted to see the Cars of defendant's husband. Thus for the third time first plaintiff met O.S.No. 1576/2016 7 with defendant's husband in all the years of the defendant's marriage. During the conversation with plaintiffs, defendant sought help to get an appointment with the plaintiff's Astrologer from Manjeshwar in Kerala. So that she could find some solace from marital life through some Astrological remedies. The first plaintiff deliberated this matter with second plaintiff to arrange for a meeting with their Astrologer and accordingly on 26.8.2014 they arranged a visit to their Astrologer at the request of the defendant, the plaintiffs also visited the Astrologer along with defendant and her husband. On the said day plaintiff No.2 met Mr. Ganesh S. Nayak for the first time. During the said meeting with Astrologer, the Astrologer advised the defendant and her husband to perform certain poojas for achieving remedies and date was fixed as 31.8.2014 and Ist September of 2014 at the resident of defendant at Manipal. The plaintiffs participated in the said Pooja held o n 31.8.2014.
8. Within a few days after completion of said Pooja, during the first week of September 2014, the first defendant contacted the plaintiff and falsely alleged that she had disclosed the matter related to her extra marital affair to her husband and created havoc in her life. The first plaintiff as taken by surprise as she O.S.No. 1576/2016 8 not indulged in such activities and same was brought to the notice of plaintiff No.2 and immediately they decided to contact the defendant's husband to enquire such conduct of the defendant. During the conversation with defendant's husband he explained that defendant had committed certain criminal offences by cheating him and he also learnt about it and confronted the defendant in that regard and she accepted that she indulged both in extra marital affair and also cheating him of Rs. 50 lakhs by organizing a facade of threat calls and letters allegedly from terrorist and she begged his mercy to forgive all her misdeeds and promised not to indulge in such activities in future. Therefore defendant's husband decided to forgive her and to give her a new lease of life and it was in the said context the defendant requested to organize meeting with Astrologer and her husband caught defendant red-handed still continuing her connection with her paramour, the day before accusing first plaintiff as above, the defendant left the matrimonial home for her parents residence. The plaintiffs were shocked to hear the same from defendant's husband decided to discontinue all communications with her. Accordingly the first plaintiff discontinued all communications with defendant. However the O.S.No. 1576/2016 9 defendant's husband having found a confidence in plaintiff No.2 remained in contact with him. He also informed in the subsequent days that defendant habitually falsely alleged of him being a womenizer and a person with low manner and initiated legal proceedings against him and sought help from plaintiff No.2. The plaintiff No.2 rendered all possible help to Mr. Ganesh S Nayak to legitimately defend the legal actions initiated by the defendant against him.
9. When the things stood thus, the plaintiffs were visiting Mangaluru between 8.12.2015 till 13.12.2015 as they had to perform some ritual rights to the deceased. On 12.12.2015 they visited the parents of first plaintiff and were returning to Mangaluru as they were to start back to Bengaluru on the next day morning. When they were traveling some where between Mulki and Surathkal, the Ist plaintiff started receiving Whatsapp messages on her mobile number 99806 77163. The said phone connection was standing in the name of plaintiff No.2., but plaintiff No.1 was using the same from the beginning. The messages received through Whatsapp with terms such as "keep", "bitch", "Prostitute", "whore" "dog" "Toilet paper" etc., referring those words to the plaintiff No.1. Said messages were O.S.No. 1576/2016 10 sent by defendant from her mobile No. 9448857715 which belongs to defendant. As the defendant's nature and tenure of these messages and sexual explicit abusive offensive in nature aimed to malign the Ist plaintiff, outraged her modesty apart from causing fallacious, aspersions. The obscene and indecent language in these messages caused aspersions on the unblemished conduct and character of plaintiff No.1. Thereafter on the same day the defendant sent SMS to plaintiff No.2 on his mobile No. 9845373330 slandering the plaintiff No.1 with derogatory remarks defaming her in view of her husband by questioning the the character of the first plaintiff, such acts of defendant would also add effect on trying to create a rift between the plaintiffs. The plaintiff No.2 replied to the said SMS that he was shocked about what defendant was alleged and refrained from any further communication.
10. The plaintiffs deemed it fit to inform the defendant's husband about such messages and her resultant conduct as the messages falsely link the first plaintiff with defendant's husband and accordingly they informed him the same on 12.12.2015. The defendant's husband informed that he was attending to a Court proceedings at Udupi on 12.12.2015 (It was ADR-Lok-Adalath).
O.S.No. 1576/2016 11 He also informed the plaintiffs that the defendant had infact sent emails in the past falsely linking with plaintiff No.1 and speaking ill of two and other alleged relationship and that he chosen not to hurt the plaintiffs by disclosing the same. Then the plaintiffs realised that having learnt plaintiff No.2 having aided defendant's husband in defending the litigation that were initiated by the defendant and having seen the plaintiffs presence at Udupi on 12.12.2015, the defendant used the said situation to tailor a false story linking plaintiff No.1 with defendant's husband and alleging extra marital affair knowing fully well no such relationship ever existed.
11. The plaintiff No.2 thereafter advised the first plaintiff against responding to such ill conceived messages or to stay in contact with defendant. That in all this while defendant had not made any phone calls to either of the plaintiffs who merely indulged in issuing messages inventory over Whatsapp and SMS.
12. The said messages in fact falsely furiously alleged plaintiff No.1 was responsible for creating a rift between the defendant and her husband and given the nature of allegations made against plaintiff No.1 found as such messages highly O.S.No. 1576/2016 12 intriguing and dangerous. That on 13.12.2015 the defendant again sent SMS to plaintiff No.2 accusing him and slandering and defaming first plaintiff again. However they tried to ignore contents of the messages although it caused irreparable damage and harm to their reputation. On the same day in the evening the defendant again started sending Whatsapp messages to the plaintiff No.1 calling her a "Whore", "Idiotic bitch" and even threatened to harm and kill her. The first plaintiff has continued to receive such messages after her return to Bengaluru and such messages defamed both the plaintiffs.
13. The derogatory and slanderous messages that outrage the modesty of the plaintiff No.1 continued day after day and have continued till date and the plaintiff No.1 has been receiving such messages in Bangalore. Even the plaintiff No.2 has received SMSs that malign the plaintiff No.1, outraged her modesty and defame her with slanderous and defamatory content, that apart maligning the plaintiff No.2 by calling him a "PIMP" that sells his wife in prostitution. The said messages have caused serious mental trauma and affected the day to day life of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have realized that they have been unwitting O.S.No. 1576/2016 13 victims to the elaborate plans of the defendant in trying to frame her husband for the purpose of legal proceedings.
14. Her Whatsapp messages sent by defendant from her Mobile No. 94489857715 to the first plaintiffs mobile No. 9980677163 and the SMS messages sent by the defendant from her Mobile No. 94489857715 to plaintiff No.2 on his mobile phone No. 9845373330 have been produced.
15. The plaintiffs have learnt from Ms. Bindu and Mrs. Manjula V. Prasad Tenkillya that defendant also approached them and defamed the plaintiffs by calling plaintiff No.1 a Keep of her husband and plaintiff No.2 acted like a Pimp by allowing his wife to have extra marital affair with her husband in return for monetary gain which constitute a defamation. They also learnt from defendants husband that defendant had even spoken ill about plaintiffs and defamed them with slanderous statements in her Whatsapp conversation with one Mr. Anup kanchan and thereby outraged the modesty of plaintiff No.1 and defamed her by taking recourse to character assassination. The plaintiffs have also received the said information from Mr. Anup kanchan. The descriptions of the messages sent by defendant O.S.No. 1576/2016 14 through her mobile phone No. 9482157715 to Mr. Anup Kanchan's mobile No. 9980581530 have been produced.
16. The defendant also issued e-mails to her husband accusing him of having illicit extra marital relationship with plaintiff No.1 and thereby further defaming the first plaintiff. The defendant continued to issue Whatsapp messages that are received by plaintiffs at Bengaluru. It is clear that defendant has maligned and defamed the plaintiffs in person and in public at Mangaluru, Manipal, Udupi and Bengaluru and such actions of defendant has lowed the Dignity, reputation and goodwill of plaintiffs otherwise enjoyed in the society. Owing to such acts of defendant, the plaintiffs have been forced to withdraw from their Societal interaction. They are confronted time and again by those defaming their close relatives and friend circle none of them believed the fallacious allegations and slanderous, defamatory remarks made against them by the defendant. The plaintiffs have suffered mentally owing to the illegal actions of defendants and her being looked at with suspicion by every persons in the society including some in the extended family. The plaintiffs have been victimised because of the illegal action of defendant and they are feeling remained mute spectators and O.S.No. 1576/2016 15 hence decided to initiate legal action against the defendant. Accordingly the first plaintiff filed complaint on 17.12.2015 before the Sanjay nagar P.S for the offences of Information Technology Act 2000 and Indian Penal Code. She also filed a private criminal complaint against the defendant for defamation amongst other things before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court at Bengaluru. The action of the defendant being torturous by virtue of the same being slanderous and defamatory of plaintiffs. they have a civil claims for damages against her for causing and continuing to cause reputation loss and causing severe mental trauma to the plaintiffs and thereby they have initiated legal proceedings by incurring expenses for no fault of their. Therefore they are claiming a sum of Rs. 1 Crore for damages from the defendant. Based on these averments prayed to decree the suit.
17. The defendant appeared through advocate and filed written statement. She has contended that the present suit is false, vexatious and liable to be dismissed. She admitted the plaintiffs are the residents of Bengaluru as per address given in the cause title and expressed ignorance about their native place. She admitted that first plaintiff persuaded, her education at O.S.No. 1576/2016 16 Udupi and married to second plaintiff. She expressed ignorance that Ist plaintiff is a home maker and she is leading respectable life and she will respected in her family and social circle. She expressed her ignorance about the place of birth, place of education and qualification of second plaintiff and that he is working as a consultant for a European company and a well established professional as sought after and he is respected in his family and his social circles. She has expressed ignorance that plaintiffs are residing in Bengaluru since December 2002. She admitted that out of the wedlock of plaintiffs, they have no issues. She admitted that she is married with Ganesh S. Nayak and out of the said wedlock they have two sons.
18. She has admitted the plaint averments at para 6, but expressed ignorance that the first plaintiff had met her husband for the first time. She admitted the averments made in para 8 that the first plaintiff visited the residence of defendant in Manipal along with common friend. She contended that first plaintiff stayed back till 8 p.m. thereafter she was dropped by her husband. She admitted the averments in para 9 of the plaint to the effect that first plaintiff and herself were in contact with each other over phone and discussed some personal problems.
O.S.No. 1576/2016 17 She admitted the plaint averments relating to the meetings between first plaintiff and defendant at Udupi and Bengaluru, but denied that she was keen to meet the second plaintiff to discuss some cases relating to properties situated at Manipal. She has contended that the depths which plaintiffs have shrunk so as to tarnish her reputation. Further she has contended that plaintiffs are bent upon tarnishing her reputation taking advantage of the fact that her defendant is waging a legal battle against her husband and she is trying it extremely difficult to take care of herself and her 2 children. She has denied that plaintiffs along with her brother met her husband during August 2014. She has denied the rest of the plaint averments regarding family dispute between herself and here husband and she intended to secure divorce with mutual consent. She admitted that with the assistance of plaintiffs, she and her husband consulted an Astrologer and arranged certain poojas and rituals in their residence and plaintiffs attended the same.
19. This defendant has contended that the averments made in para 15 of the plaint is totally false, baseless, wild imagination of the plaintiffs and it clearly amounts to defamation of defendant. Further contended that plaintiffs for O.S.No. 1576/2016 18 the reasons best known to them are bent upon tarnishing the reputation and image of defendant. She has contended that plaint averments made in para 16 of the plaint is false, baseless a figment of imagination and reckless. She has contended that the second plaintiff helped her husband in legal aspect would clearly reflect the conspiracy on the part of the plaintiffs to harass the defendant. She has denied the plaint averments at paras No. 19, 20 and 21 as baseless. She has stated that she has not sent any offensive Whatsapp messages to plaintiffs and the said allegations are clearly doctored by the plaintiffs so as to harass her. She expressed ignorance about the plaint averments made in para 20 of the plaint, She has contended that the said averments clearly reflects plaintiffs make false, reckless allegations against her only to make out imaginary grounds to file the present case. She expressed her ignorance about the plaint averments at Para 23. She has contended the plaint averments made in para 25 is totally false, reckless and obnoxious. She further contended that it is plaintiffs who are defaming the defendant by making reckless allegations against her and hence the question of defendant defaming the plaintiffs did not arise at all. She has contended that plaint averments at O.S.No. 1576/2016 19 para 26 regarding the alleged screen shots produced at Annexure-A, B and C are purely doctored and fabricated by the plaintiffs for the purpose of this case.
20. This defendant has contended that she has undergone severe mental trauma. The plaintiffs and Ganesh S. Nayak the husband of defendant colluded and joined hands to harass her. By taking undue advantage of her economic flight wherein she is finding it extremely difficult to sustain herself and her two children, the plaintiffs are deriving immense sadistic pressure by filing the present case. Further it is contended that admittedly the first plaintiff lodged complaint before Sanjay nagar P.S. Bengaluruand the said police were gone to Udupi and get defendant arrested and brought to Bengaluru. That there is no cause of action for the present suit. Further it is contended that plaintiff herself sent innumerable obscene and filthy Whatsapp messages to the defendant it establishes the suit against defendant is totally baseless. Based on these contentions prayed to dismiss the suit.
21. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed by my learned predecessor in office;
O.S.No. 1576/2016 20
1. Whether plaintiff's prove that defendant defamed the plaintiffs as narrated in the plaint ?
2. If so, whether plaintiffs are entitled to claim damages/compensation for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (one Crore) from defendant on account of lowering of reputation of plaintiffs?
3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction against defendant as prayed ?
4. What order or decree?
22. In order to prove their case, the plaintiff No.2 and 1 got examined as Pw-1 and Pw-2 respectively. In support of their evidence, they got examined 3 witnesses as Pw-3 to P-5 and relied on documentary evidence at Ex. P-1 to P-49. The defendant got examined as DW 1 and got marked documents at Ex.D-1 and D-11.
23. Heard both sides and perused the written arguments filed on behalf of both the parties and records.
24. My answer to the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative,
Issue No.4 : As per the final order,
for the following;
O.S.No. 1576/2016
21
REASONS
25. Issue No.1 : In order to prove the plaint averments that the defendant sent defaming and slanderous whatsapp messages to the Ist plaintiff and SMS to the 2 nd plaintiff and sent E-mails to her husband Ganesh S. Nayak making baseless and reckless allegations against plaintiffs and sent E-mails shared/forwarded to the plaintiffs and same caused mental agony and defamed the reputation of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.2 and 1 got examined as Pw-1 and Pw-2 respectively. In support of their evidence, they got examined 3 witnesses as Pw- 3 to P-5 and relied on documentary evidence at Ex. P-1 to P-49. In order to rebut the said oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the plaintiffs, the defendant got examined as Dw-1 and marked Ex. D-1 to D-11.
26. In this case there is no dispute regarding the personal details of the plaintiffs i.e., their social status, educational qualifications, their native places, their residence in Bengaluru and that the Ist plaintiff is a homemaker and 2 nd plaintiff was well qualified and working in a reputed company. In the written O.S.No. 1576/2016 22 statement the defendant expressed her ignorance about the educational qualification of plaintiff No.2 and his occupation as pleaded in the plaint. Regarding the educational qualification and occupation of the plaintiffs, they have not produced documentary evidence. But there is no much dispute in this regard as there is no cross-examination of Pw-1, Pw-2 regarding the said plaint averments that they are from a respectable back ground and having good reputation in their society/community and leading a respectable life style. So, when there is no specific denial of the said averments and there is no cross-examination of Pw-1, Pw-2, their testimonies in support of the said plaint averments deemed as admitted and stands proved.
27. Therefore the plaintiffs have proved that they are having good reputation in the society and leading a respectable life and are from a well educated, cultured family back ground. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have averred about the marital dispute between the defendant and her husband that the Ist defendant had disclosed about her extra marital affair to the Ist plaintiff. Though the defendant denied about extra marital life, but admitted about the marital dispute that arose in the year 2014 and that she filed dowry harassment case and that her O.S.No. 1576/2016 23 husband filed a divorce petition and same came to be decreed. In the cross-examination of Dw-1, she has explained that she has challenged the said judgment and decree and thus it appears that the same is not yet attained finality. In this regard except a certified copy of objection statement in M.C. No. 299/2019 at Ex. P-49, both the parties not produced the petition and the judgment and decree.
28. It is also an admitted fact that the Ist plaintiff and the defendant are childhood friends and in between they had no contact for some years and thereafter resumed their friendship and after their marriages with their respective husbands, they became well acquainted with each other and their relationship became close during the year 2013-14.
29. Though there is no pleading by both the parties, but admittedly as on the date of deposing evidence by Dw-1, she was practicing as a Lawyer in Udupi. She has also deposed that she is having practice all over Karnataka and that she is also facing a criminal case related to the famous Soujanya's case. Further Pw-4 has deposed that she is well acquainted with the defendant and that defendant participated in some of social events and also protests. Further as per Ex. P-49 which is the certified copy O.S.No. 1576/2016 24 of the objection statement filed in M.C. No. 299/2019 the defendant has pleaded that her father is a business man and she has done MBA even prior to her marriage and was working as a manager in a reputed financial institutions. So, from the said oral evidence, it is evident that the defendant is educationally well qualified having work experience and a social activist exposed to social works and she is having worldly knowledge and can understand the human values as a responsible citizen knowing the consequences of allegations made against the plaintiffs. So, she is not a lay person and hence, she is well educated, well knowledged person, being married, having two children, who can understand about the allegations which are the subject matter of this case. So, under these circumstances, she cannot plead ignorance about the alleged facts and law. Therefore, in this context it is necessary to examine the plaint averments against the defendants and whether the same is libel or slanderous and defamatory or not. Therefore, the plaintiffs have established that they are well educated and from a respectable family back ground having their own reputation in the society.
O.S.No. 1576/2016 25
30. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the defendant started sending slanderous and defaming messages through Whatsapp to first plaintiff from 12.12.2015 onwards which consists of words "Keep" "Bitch" "prostitute" "Whore" Dog" Toilet paper etc., alleging that she is having illicit relationship with her husband by name Ganesh S. Nayak and thereby she outraged the modesty of the Ist plaintiff maligned her reputation and thereby the conduct of the defendant caused mental agony and loss of reputation in public life as well as in their personal life. Further, it is the case of plaintiffs that the defendant had also sent SMS messages to plaintiff No.2 calling him "Pimp" that sells his wife in prostitution for money from her mobile phone No. 9448857715 to the mobile phone of second plaintiff bearing No. 9845373330. It is also the specific case of plaintiffs that the defendant had sent several defamating emails to her husband Ganesh nayak alleging that he is having illicit relationship with first plaintiff and the said emails were forwarded to the plaintiffs and the same is derogatory and caused immense mental agony to the plaintiffs. The defendant denied that she sent messages through Whatsapp to plaintiff No.1 through her mobile phone 9448857715 to the mobile phone number of plaintiff No.1 O.S.No. 1576/2016 26 9980677163 and also denied that she sent SMS from hersaid mobile phone to plaintiff No.2 with number 9845373330. Accordingly the defendant has not admitted that she sent emails to her husband and same were forwarded to first plaintiff consisting of obscene and explicit contents.
31. Therefore in order to prove the said plaint averments the plaintiffs have relied on evidence of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and documentary evidence at Ex. P-1 to P-3, Ex. P-21 and Ex. P-48 which are the bunch of whatsapp and SMS messages and emails the experts opinions. In order to counter the said allegations of plaintiff, the defendant has relied on Ex. D-1 to D- 7 which are the printouts of screenshots of whatsapp messages purportedly sent by the Ist plaintiff to the defendant and Ex. D-8 is the C.D. consisting of Ex. D-1 to D-7 and Ex. D-9 is the certificate submitted U/sec. 63 of BNS. Ex. D-10 is the Certiied copy of seizure mahazar regarding recovery of mobile phones of defendant by the police on 25.2.2016 and Ex. D-11 is the PF No. 13/2016. But on perusal of the written statement except a vague pleading there is no specific pleading in respect of the said obscene and filthy whatsapp messages allegedly sent by the Ist plaintiff. Therefore the said evidence is without pleading and O.S.No. 1576/2016 27 is of no use. As already discussed no amount of evidence without pleading is of no use. In this regard Dw-1 is cross- examined and she admitted that she had furnished copy of the C.D. at Ex. D-8 to plaintiffs and it does not consists of Ex. D-1 to 3, and 5 in the said C.D. it is marked as Ex. P-23 . Therefore admittedly Ex. P-23 is a copy of CD at Ex. D-8 and as per the testimony of Dw-1 it does not consists of Ex. D-1 to D-3, 5. The defendant has not adduced evidence to show that the said messages were sent by the plaintiffs. In the cross-examination of Pw-2 nothing is elicited to prove that she sent obscene whatsapp messages to the defendant. In this regard Dw-1 is extensively cross-examined. She has admitted that the messages found in Ex. D-8, C.D., are not found in Ex. P-23. She has deposed that she cannot produce the soft copy of google drive from 2015-2016. In the cross-examination of Dw-1, the plaintiffs got marked Ex. P-34 to 37 which is the print of contents of EX. P-23 and Ex. P-32 to P-36 which is a print out of contents of Ex. D-8 the C.D. Therefore the defendant failed to prove the said contention.
32. In order to substantiate the authenticity of whatsapp messages and SMS messages and the emails the plaintiffs have O.S.No. 1576/2016 28 relied on the Certified copy of expert opinion secured from Truth Lab by the Investigating officer in Criminal Case and produced at Ex. P-48 and Ex. P-21 which is The Truth Lab report regarding Ex. P-4. In this regard the learned counsel for defendant has vehemently argued in the written arguments that it is only an expert's opinion and cannot be accepted as evidence and that the plaintiffs have not examined the author of the said document and not proved it in accordance with law and hence no evidenciary value can be attached to the said report. Even otherwise it is well settled law that expert's opinion is only opinion and it is not conclusive proof. However in the present case the concerned Investigating officer in Criminal case in C.C. No. 123428/2016 had seized the mobile phones of plaintiffs No.1 and 2, defendant and also the SIM cards and sent for scientific analysis and secured the report as per Ex. P-48. On perusal of Ex. P-48 it appears that even said scientific analysis was done by an expert having indepth knowledge in the subject matter. The Investigating officer has secured the said report during the investigation of the criminal case against the defendant. No doubt the plaintiffs have not examined the author of the said document and proved the said document.
O.S.No. 1576/2016 29 However it is well settled law even though that said report is not a conclusive evidence but certainly it would facilitate the proper appreciation of evidence placed on record. As per Ex. P-48 after elaborated scientific analysis the said expert has opined as that the mobile phone and memory card received 233 Whatsapp messages from mobile phone number 94488557715. Thus according to the expert opinion 233 whatsapp messages produced at Ex. P-1 were sent by the defendant from her mobile No. 9448857715 to the mobile phone of Ist plaintiff and there is no tampering deletion etc., Therefore in view of specific admission in the cross-examination of Dw-1, the plaintiffs proved that the defendant sent obscene defamatory messages to the plaintiffs and called the plaintiff No.1 with defamatory words.
33. In this regard Dw-1 is cross-examined. She has admitted that investigating officer in the criminal case had seized her mobile phone as well as the SIM card and sent them for scientific analysis. She has also admitted that after scientific analysis report was given as per Ex. P-48. On perusal of cross- examination of Pw-1 and 2, there is no cross-examination that the said document has been fabricated and created. Further on O.S.No. 1576/2016 30 perusal of cross-examination of Pws 1 and 2, the defendant has not cross-examined the said witnesses in respect of said documents suggesting that the said Whatsapp messages have been created and fabricated. On the other hand in the cross- examination of Dw-1 she has clearly admitted that she sent whatsapp messages as per EX. P-1 and SMS to plaintiff No.2 as per Ex. P-2 and the E-mails to her husband as per Ex. P-3.
34. It is pertinent to note that defendant has not at all denied her mobile number 9448857715 as mentioned in the plaint averments. Accordingly she has not taken any defence regarding the said allegations except denial. Admittedly prior to the said dispute the defendant as well as her husband and the plaintiffs were well acquainted with each other and had close friendship. Accordingly the defendant has not disputed that she and the first plaintiff were used to meet and had contact over phone. Therefore in the cross-examination of Pw-1 and 2 the defendant has not elicited anything in support of her contention that the said messages have been doctored and fabricated. Accordingly the plaintiffs have also produced the SMS messages purportedly sent by the defendant to the mobile number of plaintiff No.2. Even the said SMS consisting of obscene, O.S.No. 1576/2016 31 derogatory words against the 2nd plaintiff. The Truth Lab expert has opined that there is no tampering of said messages. Further from Pw-1, Pw-2, the defendant could not elicit anything to disprove the said plaint averments. It is pertinent to note that admittedly plaintiffs are residents of Bengaluru and Udupi and defendant is resident of Udupi. The plaintiffs have stated that except that they are not having children from their wedlock they are happy couple. In the cross-examination of Pws 1 and 2 defendant could not elicit anything to prove that there was matrimonial dispute between the plaintiffs. Admittedly it is not the case of defendant that there is matrimonial dispute between the plaintiffs. Therefore in the absence of such contention it is evident that both of them living happily. Therefore the defendant has failed to prove that due to the matrimonial dispute the first plaintiff had illicit relationship with her husband Ganesh S Nayak. Therefore it is evident that plaintiffs No.1 and 2 were leading a happy married life and were residing at Bengaluru.
35. Though there is no pleading from either of the parties, but as per the Certified copy of objection statement filed in M.C. No. 299/2019 produced at Ex. P-49, the defendant herself has pleaded that her husband was working at Kuwait and Gulf O.S.No. 1576/2016 32 countries. On perusal of written statement of defendant there is no specific pleading as to whether her husband was residing in India at relevant point of time and whether there is illicit relationship between the plaintiff No.1 and her husband. Only in the objection statement filed in M.C. No. 299/2019 which was filed in the year 2020 the defendant alleged illicit relationship between the first plaintiff and her husband. By the time she filed said objection statement the present suit was filed and in this case defendant had already filed written statement. Therefore the said allegations of illicit relationship of first plaintiff with her husband in M.C. 299/2019 is only an after thought as it is not pleaded in the written statement filed in the present case.
36. In the present case there is no specific allegations against first plaintiff that she had illicit relationship with her husband. In the cross-examination of Dw-1, she has denied the suggestion that she has made false allegations against plaintiff No.1 that she had extra marital life and that plaintiff No.2 is called as a Pimp. She has deposed that the word Keep in Ex. P- 4 is refers to plaintiff No.1 and in Ex. P-4 the word 'Whore' refers to plaintiff No.1. Further Dw-1 is cross-examined regarding her O.S.No. 1576/2016 33 contention that Exs. P-1 to P-3 are doctored and fabricated, she could not explain as to why she stated so and stated that in para 23 of her written statement She has by mistake stated so. Thus, Dw-1 has denied her own defence that Ex. P-1 to P-3 are doctored and fabricated. Thereby the defendant has admitted that Ex. P-1 to P-3 have been sent by her as averred in the plaint. Therefore, it is clear that plaintiffs were leading their life decently and it is the defendant who is in the habit of sending obscene messages started troubling the plaintiffs. Hence, defendant has failed to prove that first plaintiff is having illicit relationship with her husband. Therefore as the plaintiffs no way concerned with the marital life of defendant and her husband, she has made false allegations against the first plaintiff.
37. The learned counsel for defendant has submitted written arguments and argued that the emails at Ex. P-3 relied by the plaintiffs is the privilage communication between the spouses and it will not amounts to defamation as it is not circulated published in any media. Therefore, the emails does not amounts to slanderous. In this regard the counsel for plaintiffs has pointed out the email dt: 21/4/2015 at Ex. P-5 which is admittedly sent by defendant to her husband, wherein she has O.S.No. 1576/2016 34 permitted her husband to circulate the same and vehemently argued that since the defendant had permitted to share and circulate the said email to first plaintiff or anybody else it amounts to publicising with 3rd parties and hence it is not a privilaged communication and the plaintiffs can rely on the said emails. It is further argued that she sent the said emails to her husband. The defendant has not dis-proved the said emails as there is no pleadings and evidence placed on record by the defendant.
38. In this regard the counsel for plaintiffs has cross- examined Dw-1 extensively and she has admitted that she sent Ex. P-3 E-mails to her husband and has referred plaintiff No.1 as "keep" of her husband. Further the Pw-1 has explained that he has secured the said emails from husband of defendant as same were required for the purpose of this case. Therefore, the said evidence pointed out in the written arguments by learned counsel for defendant and argued that plaintiffs have created said document only for the purpose of this case and cannot be relied on it. However, in the cross-examination of Dw-1, she has categorically admitted that she sent Ex. P-3,- Emails to her husband and that the said documents are not doctored and O.S.No. 1576/2016 35 fabricated. Therefore inview of the admission of Dw-1 in the cross-examination, the plaintiffs have proved that Ex. P-1 to P-3 documents are genuine and original documents.
39. On perusal of plaint averments the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that due to the conduct of defendant as she started defaming the plaintiffs, they are unable to socialise and attend family functions of the relatives and public functions and they have withdrawn from socialising. The plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that defendant has sent whatsapp messages to one Anup Kanchan stating that first plaintiff is "Banje"(Childless) and also obscene messages defaming the first plaintiff.
40. In this regard the plaintiffs got examined said Anup Kanchan as Pw-3 and relied on Truth lab report at Ex. P-21. The learned counsel for defendant argued that it is a private report secured by the plaintiffs and no evidentiary value can be attached to the said expert opinion. However Pw-3 has supported the case of plaintiffs and deposed that he is the friend of Ganesh Nayak, the husband of the defendant, the defendant had sent said whatsapp message at Ex. P-3 along with photograph of one Neena kini on 9.5.2015 stating that she is her O.S.No. 1576/2016 36 husbands "keep" and she is having illicit relationship with her husband and that further informed him orally that husband of said Neena was acting as "Pimp". But he was not acquainted with the said Neena and her husband. This witness claims to be a friend of Ganesh Nayak who is the husband of defendant. On perusal of cross-examination of Pw-3, the defendant has not denied the testimony of the said witness that he is a friend of Ganesh Nayak. In the cross-examination of the said witness the defendant elicited that he became friend of defendant's husband in 2014. He has stated that the defendant sent Whatsapp messages on 9.5.2015 stating that she is Neena, keep of her husband. He has deposed about the matrimonial dispute of defendant and her husband, which corroborates with the testimony of Dw-1. However, he has deposed that he disclosed the said message to defendant's husband in December 2015 and sent the said message and photo to the plaintiffs through E-mail on 29/1/2016, which conduct is unusual. However, in the cross-examination of Dw-1, She has clearly deposed that he said witness is a friend of her husband and also admitted that she sent Ex. P-5 whatsapp message to Pw-3. Therefore the plaintiffs have proved the said averment.
O.S.No. 1576/2016 37
41. The plaintiffs have pleaded that defendant had also met one Ms. Bindu Thankappan and Manjula V. Prasad Tenkillaya, that defendant approached the said persons and defamed the plaintiffs by calling plaintiff No.1 as the keep of her husband and broken their marriage and plaintiffs No.2 acted like a pimp and plaintiff No. 1 had extra marital affair with husband of defendant inturn have money gain and the same constituted defamation.
42. In order to substantiate the said plaint averments, plaintiffs got examined Manjula V. Prasad Tenkillaya as Pw-4, She has deposed that she introduced defendant with Ms. Bindu Thankappan who is a practicing advocate in Udupi and she is well known to her. Further she has stated that she is involved in social activities extensively and attend several pubic functions. Accordingly the defendant came in contact with her and she also used to attend the functions along with Pw-4. This witness has deposed that in September 2014 the defendant shown a picture of a woman who is claimed as her husband's "keep" and with whom her husband is having illicit affair and identified the said woman as Neena kini which is the maiden name of plaintiff No.1. During the course of her interaction O.S.No. 1576/2016 38 with some of the attendees of events, the defendant would often discussed her marital problems claiming that her husband Ganesh Nayak is allegedly having an affair with said Neena kini. On further enquiry she came to know that Neena kini belongs to Kini family which is well known and respectable family in Udupi town and she is also acquainted with one Harish kini who belongs to the said family. Then she sensed the serious allegations being made by defendant against Neena kini and her husband. She informed Mr. Harish Kini about conduct of defendant who inturn contacted her with the plaintiffs. On perusal of cross-examination of said witness nothing contrary elicited. It is elicited that Harish Kini is the cousin of plaintiff No.1 and that he is a social activist. However, in the cross- examination of Dw-1, she has admitted that Pw-4 is known to her and that she introduced her to Advocate Ms. Bindu Thankappan. So, the said testimony corroborates with the testimony of Pw-4. Therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the said witness. Further the counsel for defendant argued that the said witness is stated that she was not at all acquainted with plaintiffs when the said derogatory allegations were made by the defendant and it does not amount to O.S.No. 1576/2016 39 defamation. Even if the said arguments is accepted that at the time of making the said remarks by defendant, it would not have amounted to defamation, but the testimony of Pw-4 proves the plaint averments that defendant defamed them in the society and therefore they were unable to attend the social gatherings and functions.
43. That after completion of evidence and when the matter is posted for arguments, the plaintiff got examined Pw-5 Ranjitha Prabu. Said witness has deposed that when she attended a event during 2014-15, at Udupi, then she over heard a lady talking with several people in that event about her marriage to her husband was in turmoil because of her husband is having illicit relationship with a lady Neena and she referred the said lady as a 'whore' and further claimed that Neena's husband was a "pimp" who was encouraging the said relationship, she learnt that said lady was one Ambika Nayak i.e, defendant and her husband was Mr. Ganesh Nayak from Manipal. She was informed that said Neena referred by the defendant was from Kini family who was running an Ayurvedic Pharmacy at Udupi. Immediately she realized the aforesaid Neena is being plaintiff No.1 herein and her husband is plaintiff No.2 whom she was O.S.No. 1576/2016 40 otherwise acquainted with and she initially befriended with plaintiff No.1 at her family Ayurvedic pharmacy. Therefore she discontinued the relationship with first plaintiff. That in June 2025 when she was doing shopping in Udupi she saw plaintiff No.2 who approached her and enquired as to why she distanced from the plaintiffs, then she informed about what she learnt from defendant and that the plaintiffs image, character decency was completely lowered in her view and decided to severe association with plaintiffs. Then he informed about this case and requested to give evidence. Therefore on the request of plaintiffs she came and gave evidence. She has deposed in support of the plaintiffs case. In the cross-examination of said witness, nothing contrary is elicited. It is pertinent to note that Pw-s 4 and 5 are from Udupi town which is native town of plaintiff No.1 and those witnesses have deposed that plaintiff No.1 belongs to Kini family which is well known in the said town. But in this regard there is no specific pleading and hence the evidence of Pw-5 is without pleading. Though the testimony of Pw-5 is only an after thought and it is tailored to suit plaintiffs case, but the evidence of Pw-s 4 and 5 to the extent of the family background of plaintiff No.1, was not impeached in O.S.No. 1576/2016 41 the cross-examination. Therefore the said testimonies would prove that plaintiff No.1 belongs to a respectable family having her own reputation and that defendant used to tarnish her image in public.
44. The defendant has claimed that the E-mails at Ex. P-3 are personal communication with her spouse and it is a privileged communication and does not amounts to defamation. Therefore in order to show that the defendant has defamed the plaintiffs, the advocate for the plaintiff has relied on the following decisions :-
1) (1969) 1 SCC 37 ( M.C. Verghese Vs. T.J. Poonan and Another.
2) 2001 SC online Cal. 493 ( Dr. Vijay Pahwa Vs. Barti Mukherjee), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Kalkatta has held as to which are the actionable per se slanderous and which are not. In the said decision it is held that imputation of unchastity against a woman amounts to actionable per se defamatory without proof of Special damage.
45. Admittedly the Whatsapp messages and SMS messages sent by the defendant against plaintiffs No.1 and 2 were not O.S.No. 1576/2016 42 circulated either in the Whatsapp group or among the public and not published in any media.
46. In this case the plaintiffs have produced the certified copy of objection statement filed by the defendant in M.C. No. 299/2019 at Ex. P-49. They have also produced the Certified copy of messages and Emails produced by the defendant in the said case. In this regard Dw-1 is cross-examined. She has admitted the objection statement at Ex. P-49 having filed in court in the matrimonial case. Wherein the defendant has alleged that the plaintiff No.1 had illicit relationship with her husband. Further she has admitted that she produced the Whatsapp messages, SMS messages and E-mails as per Ex. P-1 to P-3 in the said case. She has also admitted that she sent E- mails to her husband as per Ex. P-3 and P-5. So, in view of the said admissions it is necessary to examine whether the same amounts to libel, or not. In this regard it may be appropriate to refer the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court reported in AIR 1966 Mad. 363( (Thanga velu Chettiar Vs. Ponnammal): (2006)2 KLI 122( Prabhakaran Vs. Gangadharan) wherein the Hon'ble Madras and Kerala High Courts have held that once statement is filed in the Court of law, it is considered as published.
O.S.No. 1576/2016 43
47. That in the case relied by the plaintiffs in (M.C. Verghesee Vs. T.J. Ponnen) the Hon'ble Supreme court has held that the statement are privilaged only when they are made in good faith. That the communication between spouses are not absolutely privilaged from disclosure. It is further held that writing defamatory letters about 3rd party to his wife constitutes publication. Therefore in this case defendant has admitted that she sent Emails at Ex. P-3 to her husband by making imputation against plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and the same produced in M.C. No. 299/2019 is amounts to publication and as the defendant has made imputation against plaintiffs, it is actionable per se. Further the defendant has admitted that she filed her objection statement as per EX. P-49 in M.C. No. 299/2019 consisting of defamatory contents against the plaintiffs. Therefore, inview of the above referred decisions the same amounts to publication of defamatory contents to the Court, Court staff and to the opposite party. So, it constitutes publication U/sec. 499 of I.P.C. making it an actionable offence. So, it is not a privileged communication and not exempted from defamation.
O.S.No. 1576/2016 44
48. In view of the oral evidence of Pw-1 to 5 and the documentary evidence extracted from the mobile number of Pw- 3, it is proved that the defendant defamed the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 by sending the messages to the whatsapp number of Pw-3 and also they have proved that defendant made slanderous defamatory allegations against the plaintiffs. Since the whatsapp messages sent to Pw-3 by defendant amounts to personal slanderous imputation by a woman against another woman accusing her of being keep of her husband and it is actionable for defamation both as criminal offence and a civil dispute. Such a statement is considered as directly injure the reputation and lower the dignity, the moral character of the person in the estimation of others. It is pertinent to note that as per Ex. P-49 which is the certified copy of objection statement filed in M.C. No. 299/2019, which admitted by Dw-1, wherein the defendant has alleged that the plaintiff had illicit relationship with her husband. Therefore the whatsapp messages sent to the mobile number of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and Pw-3 does not comes within the definition of privileged communication between the husband and wife. Therefore the defendant has publicly committed the character assassination O.S.No. 1576/2016 45 and imputed grave allegations against plaintiffs No.1 and 2 by saying that plaintiff No.1 is a "keep" of her husband and plaintiff No.2 is a " pimp" and also using obscene words and pictures. Therefore the plaintiffs have proved the plaint averments the conduct of defendant amounts libel, slanderous and defamatory. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
49. Issue No. 2 : In this case the plaintiffs have sought for damages in a sum of Rs. 1 Crore from the defendant on account of loss to their reputation and dignity in the society and for mental agony. During the pendency of the case, the plaintiff No.2 passed away. Therefore the plaintiff No.1 is entitled for damages/compensation from the defendant. The plaint averments and the evidence placed on record establishes that defendant is from a sound financial background and she is a well educated person having sufficient resources. Moreover the defendant made plaintiff No.1 suffer for loss of reputation in her social circles and also loss to her self-esteem. Hence it is just and necessary to compensate the plaintiff No.1 with reasonable compensation/damages. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case if a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs is granted as damages or compensation it would meet the ends of justice.
O.S.No. 1576/2016 46 Hence the plaintiff No.1 is entitled for damages/compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs from the defendant. Hence, I answer Issue No. 2 partly in the the Affirmative.
50. Issue No. 3:- The counsel for defendant argued that since in the criminal case lodged by the plaintiffs, the defendant has been acquitted, the present suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. But it is a settle position of law that in respect of actionable perse defamation both Civil and criminal cases are maintainable. Therefore, mere acquittal of defendant without honourable acquittal has no relevancy for the present case. Hence, the judgment passed in C.C. No. 12328/2016 has no bearing on this case.
51. The plaintiffs have filed Misc. No. 741/2022 alleging that the defendant in spite of temporary injunction has violated the same. Therefore the defendant being a practicing Advocate and a social activist has no respect to the judicial order. Therefore, considering the conduct of defendant it is just and necessary to grant permanent injunction restraining her from making further imputation against plaintiff No.1 is causing loss of reputation in the society. Hence, the plaintiff No.1 is entitled for the relief of compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs and for the relief of O.S.No. 1576/2016 47 permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to make further imputation against her. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 partly in the Affirmative.
52. Issue No. 4 :- In view of my answer to above issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit is partly decreed with costs. The defendant is directed to pay damages/ compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs (Rupees Ten lakhs only) to the plaintiff No.1 within 60 days from the date of this order. Failing which the plaintiff No.1 is at liberty to recover the said amount with due process of law.
Permanent injunction is granted restraining the defendant and any person claiming through her from communicating orally, in writing or in any form of graphical representation, or in any manner whatsoever, either in the offline media, in-person discussions or through any online medium, any defamatory remarks or content against the plaintiffs.
Draw decree accordingly.
O.S.No. 1576/2016 48 (Dictated to the stenographer grade-I, computerized and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 28th Day of March 2026) ( NIRMALA DEVI S. ) LI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
PW-1 - Ananth Nayak Adyar, PW-2 - Neena Ananth Nayak, PW-3 - Anup Kanchan. PW-4 - Manjula V. Prasad, PW-5 - Ranjitha Prabhu.
Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
Ex.P.1 U/Sec.65(B) of Evidence Act Certificate. Ex.P.2 True transcripts of the messages sent by the defendant over WhatsApp application from her mobile phone to the plaintiff No.1 mobile phone instrument, captured as screen shots on the mobile phones of the plaintiff No.1 ( These documents are at Page No.17 to 41 ). Ex.P.3 True transcripts of the messages sent by the defendant in the form of SMS (Short Message service) from her mobile phone to the plaintiff No.2 on his mobile phone ( These documents are at Page No.42 to 44 ).
Ex.P.4 True transcripts of the messages sent by the defendant over WhatsApp application from her mobile phone instrument to Mr.Anup Kanchan's O.S.No. 1576/2016 49 mobile phone instrument, captured as screen shots on the mobile phone of Mr.Anup Kanchan. ( This document contains Page No.45 ). Ex.P.5 True transcripts of the E-mails issued by the defendant to her husband and in-turn provided to the plaintiffs. ( These documents are at Page No.46 to 48 ).
Ex.P.6 Statement of Account of the plaintiff No.2's savings bank account bearing No.5-262571-809 in Citi Bank, M.G.Road Branch for the period of February 01, 2016 and February 29,2016. Ex.P.7 Printed receipt dated February 16, 2016 issued by Citi Bank to the plaintiff No.2 in respect of the Demand Draft No.169605 procured by the plaintiff No.2 for an amount of Rs 2,57,125/- ( Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand One Hundred Twenty Five Only) Ex.P.8 Response dated March 20, 2016 received by the plaintiff No.2 from the Sanjay Nagar Police Station to his RTI application along with the enclosed copies of (i) FIR No.0303/2015 lodged at the Sanjay Nagar Police Station against the defendant, Mrs.Ambika Nayak and (ii) Complaint dated December 17,2015 filed by the plaintiff No.1 against the defendant before the Sanjay Nagar Police Station.
Ex.P.9 Respose dated June 29, 2016 issued by the Karnataka Lokayukta to the plaintiff No.2 , No'2's RTI application along with the postal cover. Ex.P.10 Response dated June 29, 2016 issued by the Sanjaynagar Police Station to the plaintiff No.2, No.2's RTI Application, along with enclosed certified copies of (i) Letter dated June 17,2016 issued by the Police Commissioner's office to the Sanjaynagar Police Station (ii) Letter dated June 08, 2016 issued by the Police Commissioners Office to the Sanjaynagar Police Station and (iii) Letter dated June 01, 2016 issued by Mrs.Ambika Nayak to the Home Minister, Karnataka and forwarded to the Police Commissioners office. Ex.P.11 E-mail dated January 29, 2016 issued by one O.S.No. 1576/2016 50 Mr.Anup Kanchan to the plaintiff No.2 along with two attachments Ex. P.12 E-mail dated June 25, 2016 issued by the defendant to Mr.Ganesh S.Nayak and forwarded to plaintiff No.2 .
Ex. P-13 E-mail dated June 27, 2016 issued by the defendant to Mr.Ganesh S.Nayak and forwarded to plaintiff No.2 .
Ex. P-14 E-mail dated December 9, 2016 issued by the defendant to Mr.Ganesh S.Nayak and forwarded to plaintiff No.2 .
Ex. P-15 E-mail dated January 08, 2017 issued by the defendant to Mr.Ganesh S.Nayak and forwarded to plaintiff No.2.
Ex. P-16 E-mail dated January 10,2017 issued by the defendant to Mr.Ganesh S.Nayak and forwarded to plaintiff No.2 .
Ex. P.17 E-mail dated January 11, 2017 issued by the defendant to Mr.Ganesh S.Nayak and forwarded to plaintiff No.2 .
Ex. P-18 E-mail dated April-03, 2017 issued by the defendant to Mr.Ganesh S.Nayak and forwarded to plaintiff No.2 .
Ex. P-19 E-mail dated April 9, 2017 issued by the defendant to Mr.Ganesh S.Nayak and forwarded to plaintiff No.2 .
Ex. P-20 E-mail dated May 02, 2017 issued by the defendant to Mr.Ganesh S.Nayak and forwarded to plaintiff No.2 .
Ex. P-21 Forensic Image Authentication Report dated March 08, 2016 issued by Truth Labs to the plaintiff No.2 .
Ex. P-22 Compact disc containing documents filed as Annexure A,B,C,D along with the plaint and other relevant e-mails.
Ex. P-23 C.D. Ex. P-23(a) Print out of the contents of Ex. P-23 C.D. Ex. P-24 E mail print outs to 31 O.S.No. 1576/2016 51 Ex. P-32 to Photos 36 Ex. P-37 to E mail Print outs.
47
Ex. P-48 C/c of the FSL Report
Ex. P-49 C/c of objections in M.C. No. 299/2019.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
DW-1 : Ambika G. Naik.
Documents marked on behalf of the Defendant/s:
Ex.D-1 to Seven printouts of screenshots of WhatsApp messages Ex.D-7 sent by the plaintiff to defendant (each sheet is marked separately).
Ex.D-8 CD in respect of Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7. Ex.D-9 Certificate u/Sec.63 of BSA. (Marked subject to the
objections that the certificate is not in accordance with the form provided in the schedule of BSA 2023 and the documents does not match the description in the CD ). Ex.D-10 Certified copy of the seizure mahazar regarding recovery of mobile phone of defendant by the police on 25.02.2016.
Ex.D-11 The property form in PF.No.13/2016 dated 25.06.2016.
( NIRMALA DEVI S. ) LI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE C/c. XXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
O.S.No. 1576/2016 52 O.S.No. 1576/2016 53 Judgement by 27/3/2026 C/C XXXVII ACC & SJ, B'luru.
(CCH-38) Judgement by 28/3/2026 C/C XXXVII ACC & SJ, B'luru.
(CCH-38) O.S.No. 1576/2016 54 Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate Judgment ) ORDER The suit is partly decreed with costs.
The defendant is directed to pay damages/ compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs (Rupees Ten lakhs only) to the plaintiff No.1 within 60 days from the date of this order. Failing which the plaintiff No.1 is at liberty to recover the said amount with due process of law.
Permanent injunction is granted restraining the defendant and any person claiming through her from communicating orally, in writing or in any form of graphical representation, or in any manner whatsoever, either in the offline media, in-person discussions or through any online medium, any defamatory remarks or content against the plaintiffs.
Draw decree accordingly.
( NIRMALA DEVI S. ) LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE; BENGALURU CITY.
O.S.No. 1576/2016 55 O.S.No. 1576/2016 56