The Bombay High Court said that if a wife calls her husband impotent in a legal case, it’s not defamation. This is allowed under the law if it’s part of a genuine matrimonial dispute.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MAHARASHTRA: The Bombay High Court clearly said that if a wife calls her husband impotent while fighting a divorce or maintenance case, it does not count as defamation. The Court explained that these kinds of statements are protected under Indian law if made during a genuine legal fight between husband and wife.
Justice SM Modak gave this ruling and said the wife cannot be punished for defamation just for saying such things in her divorce case.
The Court said this comes under “Ninth Exception” to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with defamation.
The Court said:
“The court feels that when the litigation is in between both the spouses arising out of a matrimonial relationship, the wife is justified in making those allegations to support her interest. As said above, there is no judicial finding given by any Court in either way. So this Court feels that these allegations fall within the exception Ninth to Section 499 of IPC.”
The judge also added that such statements are very relevant and important in cases under Hindu Marriage Act, especially when the wife is saying that her husband’s impotency caused her mental cruelty.
“That is to say when the wife alleges due to impotency it has caused mental cruelty to the wife, she is certainly justified in making those allegations. So the grounds of impotency even though may not be primarily necessary, the allegations are on the basis of incidents that took place between their matrimonial life. As such they are very much necessary. Even on a maintenance petition in order to show neglect and refusal, these allegations of impotency are as such relevant,”
-the Court added.
This case came to the High Court after the wife, along with her father and brother, challenged an earlier order given in April 2024 by the Additional Sessions Judge in Greater Mumbai. That earlier order had told the Magistrate to re-investigate a complaint filed by the husband for defamation.
The husband claimed that the wife had said bad things about his sexual ability not just in one case, but in multiple legal matters—like her divorce petition, maintenance application, and even in a police FIR.
Earlier in April 2023, a Magistrate Court had thrown out the husband’s complaint under Section 203 of CrPC, saying that the wife’s statements were made during a legal case and there was “nothing on record to show” any threat or criminal behavior.
But the Sessions Court later disagreed and said the Magistrate must give the husband a chance to bring in his witnesses and look into the matter again under Section 202 of CrPC. This forced the wife and her family to move to the High Court.
Their lawyer argued that the Sessions Court’s remand order was wrong and based on a reason the husband himself had not even mentioned in his legal challenge. He also said the statements made by the wife were clearly tied to the divorce case and were therefore protected by law.
The wife’s lawyer further explained that the allegations were needed to show mental cruelty and neglect, and thus fall under the Ninth Exception of defamation law in Section 499 IPC.
The husband said the statements were hurtful, made without any proof or good intention, and since they are now part of public legal records, they were automatically defamatory. He also said he could not wait for the court to finish the divorce case because he had a limited time to file the defamation complaint.
After listening to all sides, the Bombay High Court ruled in favour of the wife. It cancelled the Sessions Court’s remand order and said the wife’s statements were connected directly to her claims of cruelty and neglect, so they are allowed under law.
The judge added:
“When the complaint was dismissed for the reason that impotency is a ground of divorce, the learned Revisional Court while remanding the matter ought to have made some prima-facie allegations about the said finding… I find they are missing”
So, the High Court cancelled the husband’s defamation case and gave relief to the wife and her family.
- Lawyers Shyam Dewani, Sachet Makhija, and Dashang Doshi (from Dewani Associates) appeared for the wife and her relatives.
- Lawyers Ghanshyam Mishra and Ekta Bhalerao (guided by Ekta Mistry) represented the husband.
- Additional Public Prosecutor HJ Dedhia appeared for the State.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Justice GR Swaminathan: “Vedas Will Always Protect Their Devotees”
CASE TITLE:
P v VIG
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Matrimonial Disputes
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Impotency
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
