IBC Code: Complete Overview and Drafting Workshop. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Sidharth (Officer)     01 June 2014

Defamation for publishing court application of sec 13

Respected Members, My Wife has Filed Sec 125 and Sec 13 against me one year back. In both of the cases she has put allegations of Impotency, Dowry Demand, Obscenity, Throwing Her Out Of House on me, Which are all false (please take my word for it) and as such has not provided and evidence for any of allegations (None Exists). I am fighting the case diligently and expect to win them, However due to the seemingly biased laws, She is constantly delaying the proceedings by putting up application after application, Because She knows that I being in defence can not find time to keep replying to all these applications and can not prolong the case very long, neither can I afford to keep paying the lawyer for so long. Infact Now my Boss is also reluctant to give me leave for my hearings which are twice in a month.

Now I had been planning to Put Sec 499 (Defamation) on my wife so as to stop her from putting applications. However in most cases Defamation is not accepted by Court if the allegations are only made in court and not to a Third Party or Publically. But Now She has sent a letter to My CO allegating same (Impotency, Dowry Demand, Obscenity, Throwing Her Out Of House) along with a copy of her Sec 13 application. Thus in a way she has publically alleged me of these things and has herself disclosed the court proceedings to a Third Party and making is a satisfying condition for Sec 499. So based on the copy of her letter to my CO, Can I now file a Defamation Suit on her..???


 27 Replies

Shonee Kapoor (Legal Evangelist - TRIPAKSHA)     01 June 2014

Unfortunately No.


Only if you can prove that the allegations are false and are levelled in a bid to tarnish your reputation, Defamation can be accepted by court.



Shonee Kapoor

If you don't fight for what you want, don't cry for what you LOST.

Sidharth (Officer)     01 June 2014

Sir, This goes totally against the Law Of Natural Justice. It is She Who has put the allegations and if she fails to provide any base for these allegations that is what should be required and not the opposite. What you are saying is like If I put an allegation on someone for murder then He'll have to prove that he has not committed murder..( How can someone prove NOT doing something as per LAW)???

Gautam Kapoor (IT professional Studying Law)     01 June 2014

In a way Mr.Shonee Kapoor has said yes.Read the post dilligently.

Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Advocate)     01 June 2014

defamation is  tenable in given scenerio

Jai sai baba (No mercy for B)     01 June 2014

take that copy which she sent to your company and file an application in the same court  asking for relief from her act, as she is definetly defaming your and disclosing the court proceedings..terms n condition.

there is delhi HC judgment where a guy working in nestle gurgaon was given injunction from her wife who use to write defaming letters/like  in your case to his company while DV case was in proceedings.


you can ask for injunction, restraining your wife to contact your employer/company with her malafied intentions.. if she need any more relief or if she has any other grivences..she can go to court but she has not right to influence the bread and butter of an individual.

I think its a quick remedy u can look for. 

Expeets please comment if i am wrong

Jai sai baba (No mercy for B)     01 June 2014

Wife restrained from visiting Husbands office: Delhi HC

admin | December 18, 2010


% Judgment Pronounced on: 15.12.2010 + CS(OS) No.1772/2010

GAURAV GUPTA .. Plaintiff – versus -

NIDHI BANSAL AND ORS. ….. Defendants Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Plaintiff: Ms.Geeta Luthra, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Jatin Sehgal, Advocate.

For the Defendants: Mr.Shiv Charan Garg, Advocate. CORAM:-


1. Whether Reporters of local papers may

be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported

in Digest?


IA 12488/2010 (O.39 R.1 & 2 CPC)


1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.20,01,000/- towards damages and permanent injunction.

2. The plaintiff is the husband of defendant No.1, son-in-law of defendants No.2 & 4 and brother-in-law of defendant No.3. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the  defendants are visiting the office of Nestle India Ltd., in Gurgaon where he is working and are also writing defamatory letters against him to his employers. It is alleged in the plaint that defendant No.1 has been writing letters to the employer of the plaintiff, to wreck personal vendetta on him and to ensure that his services are terminated. It is further alleged that she is trying to malign the reputation of plaintiff by making calls and baseless allegations. It is also alleged that on 09.08.2010, defendants No.1 & 2 came to the office of the plaintiff and created a scene in the office, alleging that he had absconded and was not taking the calls of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 is also alleged to have called up the junior of the plaintiff, Pankaj Batra and threatened him. The plaintiff claims to have received a call from HR department of its employer asking him to refrain defendant No.1 from involving the company in their private matters and from causing nuisance in the office so that the office environment is not spoiled. It is also alleged that on 10.08.2010, the plaintiff received a call from his office informing him that defendant No.1 was in his office with their daughter and was threatening to leave their daughter alone in the office. She also started screaming and shouting at the reception and insisted on leaving the daughter of the parties at the reception. When the other employees tried to pacify her, she started abusing the plaintiff in the filthiest language. The plaintiff has claimed damages amounting to Rs.20,01,000/- from the defendants besides injunction restraining them from coming to his office and creating any disturbance there. He has also sought injunctionrestraining them from corresponding with his office.

3. The defendants have contested the suit and have taken a preliminary objection that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit. They have also claimed that the suit is barred by Section 41(i) of Specific Relief Act. On merits, it is alleged that the plaintiff had left defendant No.1 and their two children on the pretext of going to Pant Nagar. He did not return thereafter to the Flat in which they were residing in Dwarka. On merits, it has been denied that defendant No.1 had misbehaved in the office of the plaintiff.

4. In support of his contention that Delhi Courts have no territorial jurisdiction to try this suit, the learned counsel for the defendants has relied upon the provisions contained in Section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that suit for the determination of any right or interest in immovable property other than those specified in clauses (a) (b) and (c) shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated. I am unable to appreciate how Section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to the present suit. This is not a suit claiming any right, title or interest in an immovable property situated in Gurgaon. The grievance of the plaintiff is that he is working with Nestle India Ltd. and is posted in its office at Gurgaon, the defendants are creating nuisance in his office and are writing defamatory letters to his employers. This does not amount to claiming any right, title or interest in the property in which the office of Nestle India Ltd. is functioning in Gurgaon. Therefore, prima facie, Delhi Courts have jurisdiction to try the present suit.

5. Section 41(i) of the Specific Relief Act provides that an injunction cannot be granted when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to the assistance of the court. At this stage when the Court is deciding an application for grant of temporary injunction during pendency of the suit, it is difficult for the Court to take a view as regards inter-se conduct of the parties to the suit. This is a matter which can be decided only after trial, since there are accusations and counter-accusations by the husband and wife against each other.

6. Admittedly, defendant No.1 has filed a petition against the petition under Domestic Violence Act. A divorce petition has also been filed by the plaintiff against defendant No.1. An FIR has also been lodged by defendant No.1 against the plaintiff. There can be no objection to any of the defendants taking recourse to legal proceedings. However, the defendants have no right to create nuisance in the office where the plaintiff is working and to defame him amongst his colleagues and superiors. A perusal of the letter dated 10.08.2010 sent by defendant No.1 to Nestle India Ltd. would show that on 10.08.2010, she along with her children had gone to the office of the plaintiff and had a talk with one Mr. Sewak there. In this letter, defendant No.1 also alleged that the entire office staff was hand-in-glove with Mr.Gaurav Gupta who had left his wife and two seven month old children on street. She also conveyed her decision to stage a peaceful march/demonstration outside the office of Nestle India Ltd. at Gurgaon as well as outside its registered office at Connaught Place, New Delhi. A perusal of the letter dated 20.08.2010 written by Nestle India Ltd. to defendant No.1shows that she exhibited undesirable conduct on 10.08.2010 which disturbed the working of the office. The letter dated 07.09.2010 written by Nestle India Ltd. to the plaintiff also shows that defendant No.1 visited Nestle India Ltd. on that day and created disturbance at the reception area. It further shows that she had earlier visited the office and threatened to leave the children in the office for the plaintiff to take care of them. The plaintiff was advised by his employers to take necessary steps to ensure that his personal dispute with defendant No.1 is resolved outside the office. He was informed that it would be his responsibility to ensure that handle the matter with her, without disturbing the office working.

7. The defendants have no right to visit the office premises of Nestle India Ltd. where the plaintiff is working and disturb the peace and working environment of that office by creating scenes there and indulging in unacceptable behavior. Taking recourse to such means would not be a lawful action. The plaintiff is not the only  employee of Nestle India Ltd. working in that office. The defendants have no right to interrupt the functioning of the office of Nestle India Ltd. by creating nuisance there or to hold any dharna/demonstration outside the office. If she has any grievance against the plaintiff on account of his neglecting her or her children or treating her with cruelty, she can take recourse to appropriate legal proceedings against the plaintiff but, she is not entitled to enter his office and disturb the peace and tranquility of office and defame him in the eyes of his colleagues.

8. A perusal of the letter dated 16.10.2010 written by defendant No.1 to SHO Police Station, DLF City, Phase-II, Gurgaon, with copy endorsed to Nestle India Ltd. at its Gurgaon office as well as its Connaught Circus, New Delhi Office, would show that she alleged manipulation by the defendants in the attendance sheet of the Company on certain dates on which the plaintiff is alleged to be present outside Tis Hazari Court and/or at C.A.W. Cell, Maurya Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi. A perusal of the letter dated 25.10.2010 written by Nestle India Ltd. to the plaintiff also shows that a communication was sent by defendant No.1 to various authorities making allegations regarding the  products of the company on the basis of various statements attributable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff can have no grievance if the defendants levy allegations with respect to products of Nestle India Ltd. but if the allegations are based on the statements attributed to the plaintiff, it is quite obvious that the purpose is to create problem for the plaintiff with his employer by alleging that he despite being an employee of Nestle India Ltd. was levelling allegations against that company. The defendants have no legal right to tarnish the image of the plaintiff by making false accusation against him, particularly when those accusations have the potential of jeopardizing the employment of the plaintiff. If the defendants are not restrained from visiting the office of the plaintiff, it will not be possible to ensure that the defendants do not create nuisance there and do not disturb the functioning of the office.

9. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, the defendants are restrained from visiting the office of Nestle India Ltd. at Gurgaon without prior permission of this Court and from writing any defamatory letters to Nestle India Ltd. against the plaintiff.

10. The application stands disposed of. (V.K. JAIN)


DECEMBER 15, 2010

Sidharth (Officer)     02 June 2014

Mr Gautam Kapoor and Jai Sai Baba,  can you please guide me as to under which section/act this application of injunction can be filed?? What would be a better option?? Filing for injunction is only going to prevent any future incidents of such sort. However, A defemation suit is to punish her for the acts already committed along with financial/physical punishment. I do not think that she is going to visit or write again, neither is her writing or visits making any change of attitude of people towards me. However, Legally She has committed Defamation and I want to punish her for the same. It's not vengeance, It's basic justice.

Sidharth (Officer)     02 June 2014

Mr Shonee Kapoor, I believe I do not have to prove that the allegations are false.It is she who has to prove that the allegations are true..

Kamal Grover (Advocate High Court Chandigarh M:09814110005 email:adv.kamal.grover@gmail.com)     02 June 2014

Dear Sidharth,

you can file case of defamation in same court. ask your lawyer he will file the same.

but this case will be decided alongwith pending cases.

But if you want any short solution then better to approach your High court and put a case with a prayer to directed the court below to conclude your case within time bound manner/6 months or a year.

Good luck.



Sidharth (Officer)     02 June 2014

Sir, By Same court you mean the court where my wife has filed her case..?? Because She has filed her case in her hometown, I being in defence am posted at another place and my hometown is in third place, where I have also attained Sec 9 decree against her however she has filed a review petition.( Though all in the same state). Now as such I am travelling to both my hometown and her hometown for the hearings, Is is prudent to file a case in eiher of these places ( It'll have different dates as the case will be in Dist Court and not Family Court). Wouldn't it be possible/better if i file the case at the place of my posting ( Easier for me to attend hearing and equally troublesome for her to come)

Gautam Kapoor (IT professional Studying Law)     02 June 2014

Kamal saab apne to aaj gajab ki advice de hain.Do saal ke purane post agar main niakallon apne to bagair mautrama ki dahej ki shikayat ke bagair apne 498 darj karne ka sujhaav deeya hain.

Gautam Kapoor (IT professional Studying Law)     02 June 2014

kya hum yeh sudden transition ka wajeh jaan sakte hain ?

Gautam Kapoor (IT professional Studying Law)     02 June 2014

koi gal nahin paaji .. koi gal nahin .. der aaye durust aayen, Cheers and God bless.

Shonee Kapoor (Legal Evangelist - TRIPAKSHA)     03 June 2014

Back to the moot point.


Defamation would be your case, hence the onus would be on you to prove the following:


1. The allegations are false.

2. The allegations are spread by her to tarnish your image.



Shonee Kapoor

If you don't fight for what you want, don't cry for what you LOST.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query