Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has held that allegations of impotency made by a woman against her husband during matrimonial litigation cannot be treated as defamatory, as such statements are relevant and made in good faith to protect her legal interests.
High Court Dismisses Husband’s Defamation Plea Against Estranged Wife
Justice S M Modak recently dismissed a defamation complaint filed by a man against his estranged wife and her family members. The man had objected to allegations of impotency levelled against him in her divorce and maintenance petitions, as well as in an FIR, claiming they were defamatory and damaging to his reputation.
The woman, her father and brother had approached the High Court challenging an April 3, 2024, sessions court order that directed a Magistrate to reconsider the husband’s defamation complaint. The Magistrate had earlier dismissed the complaint in April 2023, noting that the allegations were part of the grounds cited for divorce.
Court Says Impotency Claims Are Relevant in Divorce Proceedings
“In a Hindu Marriage Petition, the allegations of impotency are very much relevant. That is to say, when the wife alleges that due to impotency it has caused mental cruelty to the wife, she is certainly justified in making those allegations,” the judge said.
The court clarified that it was not deciding on the truth or falsity of the impotency allegations, or the husband’s capability for intercourse. Rather, the limited question was whether such statements were made with malice or without good faith.
Statements Made in Legal Context Fall Under Defamation Exception
“This court feels that when litigation between spouses arises in a matrimonial relationship, the wife is justified in making those allegations to support her interest. The same cannot be held as defamatory,” Justice Modak observed.
Allegations Protected Under Section 499 IPC’s Ninth Exception
The judge also highlighted that such statements fall under the ninth exception of defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code — covering imputations made in good faith for protection of the interest of the person making them.
The husband had claimed that since the allegations were part of court documents and the FIR, they entered the public domain and harmed his reputation. He also submitted a birth certificate of his son to counter the impotency claim.
The court, however, ruled in favour of the woman and her family, stating that the allegations were based on incidents from their marital life and were relevant to the matrimonial proceedings.
