Delhi District Court
Praveen Kumar Tanwar vs Bharat Pal Singh (Since Deceased) on 12 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. TWINKLE WADHWA: LD. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE03:PATIALA HOUSE COURT:NEW DELHI DISTRICT
CS No. 56695/16
Praveen Kumar Tanwar
S/o Late Shri Jai Singh
R/o 9B/8, N P L Colony,
New Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi110060. .....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1.Bharat Pal Singh (since deceased)
2. Kamla W/o Shri Bharat Pal Singh R/o Village Dudhi, PO Khatauli, Distrcit Muzaffar Nagar, UP.
2. Pramod Kumar S/o Bharat Pal Singh, R/o Village Dudhi, PO Khatauli, Distrcit Muzaffar Nagar, UP.
3. Ms. Munesh D/o Bharat Pal Singh, R/o Village Dudhi, PO Khatauli, Distrcit Muzaffar Nagar, UP.
....Defendants
CS No. 56695/16 Page 1
of 8
Date of Institution : 11.03.2014
Date of Final Arguments : 05.09.2018
Date of Decision : 12.09.2018
JUDGMENT
The Case
1. By way of the present judgment, I shall dispose off the suit filed for damages for defamation of an amount of Rs.5 lacs by plaintiff husband against his fatherinlaw, motherinlaw, brother inlaw and wife.
Plaintiff's Case
2. It is the case of plaintiff that he is a well educated person having degree of B.Sc., M.Sc and MBA. He is working as Technical Assistant in National Physical Laboratory. Further the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant no.4 was held on 18.05.2013 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Khatauli, Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, UP. Before marriage, certain gift articles were forcibly given to plaintiff by defendants that they are gifts for their daughter defendant no.4. It is further alleged that marriage between him and defendant no.4 was duly consummated at their matrimonial home at NPL Colony.
CS No. 56695/16 Page 2 of 8
3. It is further the case of plaintiff that defendant no.4 has mentally tortured and harassed the plaintiff and also his parents. Defendant nos.1 and 2 and sister and jija of defendant no.4 used to interfere in the married life of the plaintiff with defendant no.4. Further defendant no.4 has levelled false allegations against plaintiff that he is impotent and is not able to perform the sexual act. Relatives of defendant no.4 used to ask questions about sexual life of the plaintiff with defendant no.4. In June 2014, defendant no.4 along with her relatives had met Mausa and Mausi of plaintiff and told them that plaintiff has no interest in sexual life and is unable to reproduce. Doctor has asked him for treatment. In September 2013, when plaintiff came to know about the above behaviour of defendant no.4 and his relatives from his Mausa and Mausi, he felt defamed. It is averred that when his wife left the matrimonial home, she was two months pregnant.
4. Further defendant no.4 used to torture him about previous wife and first divorce. Further she used to mentally torture thereby saying that she will abort the child. Further despite leaving the matrimonial home on subsequent dates, the defendant no.4 had made false allegations to the police against him. Further all the averments made in the legal notice are also incorrect which was CS No. 56695/16 Page 3 of 8 sent to defendant no.4. Further several matrimonial cases between the parties have been pending. He denied that he ever tortured his wife mentally or physically or ever demanded dowry. Further on 10.02.2014 also, defendant nos.1 to 4 made false allegations against the plaintiff regarding impotency and dowry. Further on 18.02.2014 also, these false averments were made.
5. Plaintiff has filed on record various defamatory messages alleged to have been sent to him by defendant no.4 and also has filed conversations/videos between plaintiff and his wife.
6. Hence, the present case is filed for defamation on the ground that defendants have made false and defamatory allegations regarding the potency and incapability of plaintiff. Hence, the present suit is filed.
Case of defendants
7. It is the case of defendants that the present is a false and fabricated case against them. The defendant no.4 being wife of the plaintiff, any such communication is priveleged communication between the parties. Further such comment is a fair comment if any. Further such comments were made by wife only to her mother who told her father. Further such comments disclosed to close relatives of wife cannot be termed as publication. It is denied CS No. 56695/16 Page 4 of 8 that any of the defendants have tried to defame the plaintiff.
8. To prove his case, Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and exhibited the following documents S.No. No. of Exhibits Details of the documents 1 Ex. PW1/1(OSR) Documents containing video clippings 2 Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) Copy of marriage certificate 3 Ex.PW1/2A(OSR) Copy of complaint dated 18.09.2013 4 Ex.PW1/3(OSR) Complaint dated 20.09.2013 5 Ex.PW1/4(OSR) Complaint dated 21.09.2013 Ex.PW1/5(OSR) Complaint to Police Commissioner dated 6 21.09.2013 7 Ex.PW1/6(OSR) Copies of medical prescriptions 8 Ex.PW1/7 Video clip
9. To prove their case, defendants examined Shri Promod Kumar as DW1.
Reasons for decision
10. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record.
11. In a case for defamation, it is mandatory for the plaintiff to prove that he has been defamed in the eyes of other persons. It is the case of plaintiff that in June 2014 plaintiff was defamed in front of his Mausa and Mausi who told about the same later on. He has CS No. 56695/16 Page 5 of 8 repeatedly been defamed in front of his other family members which has resulted in lowering of his image and resulted in mental torture to him. However, plaintiff has not produced any family member on record as witness to prove that his image was lowered in their eyes. No one has come to the Court to depose that defendants have defamed the plaintiff in front of their eyes thereby saying that he is incapable of performing sexual act.
12. Hence, no evidence is produced at all by plaintiff that he was defamed in the eyes of his family or friends. The specific incidents mentioned by plaintiff in his plaint are not proved. Rather defendant no.3 was crossexamined by plaintiff in the present matter. During his crossexamination, there are no such suggestions to him that they have defamed him regarding his impotency. All the crossexamination of DW3 has centered around the dowry only. Hence, it is not proved that plaintiff has been defamed.
13. Further plaintiff has not proved any document on record to show that such document was published which resulted in lowering of his image in front of his family and friends.
14. The printouts of the SMS and video recordings filed on record, even if taken up to be proved, are of no help of the plaintiff CS No. 56695/16 Page 6 of 8 to prove the act of defamation by the defendants as they were exchanged between husband and wife only.
15. To prove defamation, the specific act of defamation have to be proved. Only on the basis of general averments, it cannot be said that he was defamed. Further it is specific case of defendant no.4 wife that she has shared the information only with her mother and father, if any. Hence, from the said admission it cannot be said that it was proved that plaintiff was defamed amongst his family and friends in the absence of any specific evidence to that extent. Only sharing of information by wife with her own mother, father or brother cannot be said to have defamed the plaintiff amongst his family and friends.
16. Further only because defendant no.4 was pregnant, it cannot be said that defamation is proved. A man may be able to perform sexual acts sometimes and may not be able to perform sexual act other times, or may not able to perform sexual acts most of times. No general inference can be drawn that only becaue wife was pregnant hence he was not suffering from impotency.
17. Further even if there are allegations of impotency by wife, defamation is still not proved by plaintiff. Further impotency is not permanent disease. It may be cured as well. Hence, defendant CS No. 56695/16 Page 7 of 8 no.4 was pregnant is itself no ground to presume that plaintiff had not been impotent on any previous occasion in view of the specific averment of the wife.. But without going into the issue whether the fact of impotency is proved by wife or not, I would say that plaintiff has failed to prove that by way of any such averment he has been defamed. When the act of defamation itself is not proved, in the absence of any witness to the same, it is immaterial whether the allegations made by the wife correct or not.
18. In view of above, the present suit is devoid of any merits and is dismissed.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedAnnounced in an open Court TWINKLE by TWINKLE WADHWA On 12th day of September, 2018. WADHWA Date: 2018.09.12 09:29:14 +0530 (TWINKLE WADHWA) ADJ03/PHC/NEW DELHI 12.09.2018 CS No. 56695/16 Page 8 of 8