Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)
Basina Appanna vs Peta Akkanna on 14 July, 1924 cites

Brahmanna vs Ramakrishnama And Ors. on 20 December, 1894

2. It was next argued that the person defamed was the complainant's wife and that the complainant had no right to initiate the prosecution. Brahmanna v. Ramakrishnama (1894) ILR 18 M 350 : 5 MLJ 89 was relied on in support of this proposition. This case, however, related to a civil action and it was held that the injury caused to the husband was remote and not immediate and that although imputation of unchastity on the part of plaintiff's wife caused him pain of mind, that did not give him a right to claim damages. But in the present instance we are not concerned with the civil rights of the parties and the authorities bearing on this subject clearly establish that where a married woman is defamed by imputation of unchastity, her husband is a person aggrieved under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, the combined effect of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code is, that the husband of the woman to whom unchastity is imputed has the right to prefer a complaint of defamation.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1