Back
1891 Supreme(Mad) 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
M Ayyar, Wilkinson
Chellam Naidu
Versus
Ramasami
Decided On : 3 February, 1891
The main legal principle established is that the husband of a defamed married woman is considered a person aggrieved by the defamation and can file a complaint under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Headnote:
Defamation - Married Woman - The court held that the husband is a person aggrieved by the defamation of his wife and can file a complaint under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Fact of the Case:
The question referred to the court was whether a married woman being defamed by the imputation of unchastity allows her husband to be considered a person aggrieved by the defamation under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the husband is indeed a person aggrieved by the defamation of his wife and is entitled to file a complaint under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues: The main issue was whether the husband of a defamed married woman can be considered a person aggrieved by the defamation under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted that the words 'some person aggrieved by such offence' in Section 198 include the husband in their ordinary meaning, as his reputation is intimately connected with that of his wife. The court also noted that the difference in language used in Section 345 and Section 198 is not a sufficient ground for putting a narrower construction on Section 198.
Final Decision: The court answered the question in the affirmative, holding that the husband is a person aggrieved by the defamation of his wife and can file a complaint under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Muttusami Ayyar, J.
1. The question referred, for our opinion, is whether in cases in which a married woman is defamed by the imputation of unchastity, her husband is a person aggrieved by the defamation, upon whose complaint the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am of opinion that our answer must be in the affirmative. The words, "some person aggrieved by such offence," include the husband in their ordinary meaning, and his reputation is so intimately connected with that of his wife that it would be unreasonable to hold that the defamation would ordinarily not be as hurtful to his feelings as it is to those of his wife. It is true that under Section 345 the wife may, without the consent of the husband, and even contrary to his wish, compound the offence as "the person defamed," thereby rendering the complaint made by the latter liable to be dismissed. But it must be observed that generally the husband and the wife will act in concert, and that the difference in the language used in Section 345 and Section 198 is, therefore, not a sufficient ground for putting a narrower construction on Section 198. I answer the question in the affirmative.
Wilkinson, J.
2. I am of the same opinion, and would only add that in this case it was charged that the article had been published with the intention of injuring the reputation of the husband as well as of his wife. He was entitled to a finding on the charge of defamation against himself, and that charge no one but himself could compound.
