Statements made in judicial proceedings are protected by absolute privilege and do not constitute defamation.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 31.08.2018 passed in O.S.No.368 of 2012 by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the trial Court”).

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the trial Court. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The facts of the case before the trial Court are that defendant No.1 got married to one Shashikala on 24.04.2002 at Hyderabad and that he filed an FCOP No.806 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad against Shashikala and the plaintiff herein is seeking dissolution of marriage by attributing illegal intimacy between said Shashikala and the plaintiff herein. Based on the evidence on record, the Family Court has passed a judgment and decree dated 31.12.2010 disbelieving the case of defendant No.1 about adultery but has granted the decree of divorce since Shashikala did not wish to join defendant No.1 due to the allegations of adultery made against her and the said judgment and decree of the Family Court became final.

4. The grievance of the plaintiff herein is that the said allegation of adultery raised against him, attributing illegal intimacy with Shashikala, has damaged his reputation and that he felt insulted in the society and thus, filed suit for damages against defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is his case that defendant No.2 has deposed in the said Family Court as PW2 supporting the case of defendant No.1 herein. He is aggrieved by the allegations because he was the man who performed the marriage of Shashikala with defendant No.1 herein and thus, has filed the suit.

5. The defendant No.1 has filed written statement before the trial Court stating that ever since his marriage with Shashikala she did not allow him to cohabitate with her stating that she is in a love affair with someone else and that due to her attitude he suffered a lot of mental agony and the plaintiff herein is the cousin brother of Shashikala and he had illicit relationship with Shashikala and that he has seen both of them together on some occasions in an obscene position during the months of September and October, 2002 and when he questioned them about their illicit relation, Shashikala threatened him that she would file a false dowry case against him. Subsequently, he informed the matter to his mother-in-law, after which his mother-in-law and Shashikala assured him that Shashikala would give divorce very soon and that on 15.10.2003, Shashikala left the company of defendant No.1. He further averred that Shashikala filed a maintenance case against him and also a criminal case against him and his family members. He further averred that Shashikala had her own brothers, therefore, the question of performing Kanyadanam by plaintiff does not arise and it is a concocted story by the plaintiff. He expressed his readiness to take back Shashikala to his company before the Family Court but she refused to join him. He denied to have made any false allegations against the plaintiff and he alleged, on the other hand, stating that he has suffered a lot and lost his reputation in the society because of her behavior with the plaintiff herein.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.5,03,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% jointly and severally from the defendants No.1 and 2 towards damages as pra