Back
1891 Supreme(Mad) 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
M Aiyar
V. Ramasami Naidu
Versus
Chella Naidu
Decided On : 3 February, 1891
The main legal point established is that the husband is considered a person aggrieved by the defamation of his wife, allowing him to file a complaint for the offence under Section 190 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 upon his complaint, the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Fact of the Case:
The question referred for opinion was whether a married woman being defamed by imputing unchastity allows her husband to be a person aggrieved by the defamation, upon whose complaint the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 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 his reputation is intimately connected with that of his wife, making the defamation hurtful to him as well.
Issues: The issue was whether the husband is a person aggrieved by the defamation of his wife and whether the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence upon his complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the words 'aggrieved by such offence' to include the husband in their ordinary meaning, considering the intimate connection between the reputation of the husband and that of his wife.
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 upon his complaint, the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Muthusami Aiyar, J.
1. The question referred for our opinion is whether in cases in which a married woman is defamed by imputing unchastity to her, her husband is a person aggrieved by the defamation, upon whose complaint the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am of opinion that our answer must be in the affirmative. The words " 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 much hurtful to the feelings of the former as it is to those of the latter. 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 the husband charged that the article had been published with the intention of injuring the reputation of the husband and 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.
