A wife's claim for damages for defamation against her husband is not maintainable before the Family Court when it does not connect to additional reliefs within the matrimonial context.

JUDGMENT :

Devan Ramachandran, J.

1. The petitioner, who is the wife of the first respondent but living estranged from him on account of severe matrimonial strife between them, is enraged that the latter made unsubstantiated allegations about her in an Original Petition filed by him before the learned Family Court, Kattappana, seeking divorce; and then published the same for the knowledge of her relatives, friends and even strangers.

2. The above said Original Petition filed by the first respondent was dismissed; and then, seeking damages for defamation, she filed O.P. (RM) No.79/2020 before the learned Family Court.

3. It transpires that the first respondent resisted the Original Petition above mentioned, inter alia, on the ground that it is not maintainable before the learned Family Court and after hearing both sides, the said Court has entered a finding, underpinned on the declarations in Rarima R v. Rejulal K.V. and another , ILR 2023 (1) Ker. 860, approving the contention of the first respondent against the maintainability of the Original Petition before it; thus returning it to be presented before the appropriate forum.

4. The appellant challenges the impugned judgment as being illegal and untenable, arguing that an earlier judgment of this Court, namely Rajesh P.P. and Another v. Deepthi P.R. 2021 (4) KHC 242 , declares the law beyond pale of doubt that an original petition can be maintained by a wife even against her husband - whether divorced or otherwise - for compensation for defamation.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents, Sri.George Mathew, however, contended that the order of the learned Family court is without error because, Rajesh P.P. (supra) involved a factual matrix wholly different and distinct from that projected in this case. He pointed out that, in the said precedent, the claim was not for damages alone, but was only a corollary one, along with the primary plea for return of gold ornaments, household articles and cash - forming the petitioner therein’s patrimony. He argued that, in such a scenario, when the primary, or main reliefs, are ones which were maintainable before the learned Family court, an additional or accompanying plea for damages for marital tort is certainly actionable before the said Court. He then predicated, relying on Rarima R. (supra) that, however, in a situation where the Original Petition contains solely a claim for damages for defamation, the learned Division Bench has rendered it apodictic that such would not be maintainable before the learned Family Court, since the marital status/relationship between the parties would induce no impact on the ultimate decision. He thus, prayed that this appeal be dismissed.

6. It becomes obvious, when one hears the learned counsel for the parties as above, that the real issue in this case revolves on the interplay of the decisions of this Court in Rarima R. (supra) and Rajesh P.P. (supra). Without contest, the decision of this Court in Rajesh P.P. (supra) is one earlier in time; and that it is not referred to in Rarima R. (supra).

7. However, it ought to be borne in mind that, in Rajesh P.P. (supra), the learned Division Bench encountered a factual situation of a divorced wife suing her former husband for return of gold, household articles and cash; and, along with it, she also sought damages to a certain sum on the ground that the latter had denigrated her, making unsubstantiated allegations that she is mentally unwell. It was in such specific factual scenerio that the learned Bench of this Court held that the Original Petition is maintainable before the Family Cou