JUDGMENT - V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. :---The applicant herein challenges concurrent judgments of the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akot, whereby the applicant was convicted for offence under section 500 I.P.C. and is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for 10 days. 2. Shortly stated the facts are that the applicant and the non-applicant No. 1 Razia Begum were at the relevant time husband and wife. The marriage took place some where in the year 1974. After first few years, there was a tune of discard in the marital relationship so much so that the husband and wife started living separately. The non-applicant No. 1 filed a civil suit against the husband for divorce and the husband also in all solemnity did not choose to remain present in the Court. Ultimately, suit was decreed and divorce granted. It is thereafter in the year 1980 that the non-applicant No. 1 filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. as then divorced Mohammedan ladies were entitled to be maintained under section 125 Cr.P.C. A reply to this application given by the husband has acted as launching pad for this prosecution. In the reply, the accused introduced the following paragraph :--- "Applicant No. 1 is a beautiful 38 years old women. During her High School and College education she was a characterless girl. People of Akot know her as a Head-mistress but she is really a prostitute. She is very popular in educated and rich persons. Officers type and rich persons of out sider also come and enjoy with her. She receives four or five persons every month". On this, the wife filed a criminal complaint case. The defence on the part of the husband-accused was peculiar. He claimed that he was justified under the 9th Exception to section 499 I.P.C. to make these allegations. In support of the complaint, complainant examined herself. She was exhaustively cross-examined. One clerk was also examined to prove that the husband was the author of the perse defamatory paragraph and in fact husband had never disowned the said writing. After consideration of the evidence, the trial Court come to the conclusion that the husband has committed offence under section 500 and convicted him and sentenced him as mentioned above. One clerk was also examined to prove that the husband was the author of the perse defamatory paragraph and in fact husband had never disowned the said writing. After consideration of the evidence, the trial Court come to the conclusion that the husband has committed offence under section 500 and convicted him and sentenced him as mentioned above. The appeal having failed, the husband has come before this Court in revision. 3. Shri H. Ahmad, in his usual persuasive manner took me through the evidence in order to impress upon the Court the justification of the husband that he was covered under the 9th Exception of section 499. He streneously pointed out that both the courts below have failed to consider the intricacies of the cross-examination of the prosecutrix and in the process have failed to really read the material which was sufficient to justify a plea that the husband had acted in his defence and also had acted in good faith. 4. Shri Mehadia, learned Counsel for non-applicant No. 1 pointed out that this could not be a case where plea of justification on the ground of good faith could be substantiated. The learned A.G.P. also supported both the judgments of courts below. 5. Considering the rival contentions, it will be futile to gauge the nature of the impugned material. The very glance at the same shows that it is per se defamatory. A wife, who is a lady serving as a Head-mistress in a semi-urbanised place like Akot, when is charged with characterless-ness, prostitution, popularity amongst elite class on account of her character, the finding regarding the defamatory nature of the allegations becomes redundant. The impugned material not only was defamatory but is per se defamatory and ugly. 6. The question is whether the accused was justified as he has tried to raise this defence very feebly. In order to attract 9th Exception to section 499, it will have to be established that the imputation is made firstly in good faith and secondly for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person or for the public good. Now there is no dispute that the allegations were made in order to protect the interest of the present applicant. Now there is no dispute that the allegations were made in order to protect the interest of the present applicant. He probably wanted to show before the Court that the lady was a characterless woman and was as such not entitled to maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. However, the question is whether any reckless and ugly allegations can be made in order to protect the interest of the person concerned and that too without exercising due care and caution, which is the first sine qua non for the establishment of the plea of good faith. The whole cross-examination is merely directed towards some incidents, which do not by themselves spell out any characterless-ness on the part of the lady. There are some stray suggestions here and there firstly regarding the fact that the lady had delivered child prior to marriage and secondly even after the separation the lady gave birth to a dead child. The suggestions in the cross-examination are conspicuously innocuous. They do not even drive home the plea that the maker of the allegations has exercised any due care and caution. The further suggestions are regarding some non-existent incidents like the lady alarming a man inside the room that she should be left alone as the chowkidar viz. Mullaji was likely to come. Now such suggestions are really more damaging than helping the accused. They do not in any manner show that the lady was in any manner characterless. Further suggestions do not in any manner suggest that the applicant had before making any allegations tried to convince himself by a careful enquiry or had exercised due caution before making the allegations. All these seem to be totally absent in this matter. In that view of the matter, it could not be said, really speaking, that the applicant had any case much less to be fitted in the 9th Exception to section 499 I.P.C. 7. Shri Ahmad tried to impress upon the mind of the Court that the burden on the part of the accused is extremely light and is not onerous as that of complainant. That mere possibility on the part of the accused entertaining the belief regarding the characterlessness of the lady was sufficient and in fact his own impressions were not liable to be proved, as such using the onerous standards of proving the guilt of the accused. That mere possibility on the part of the accused entertaining the belief regarding the characterlessness of the lady was sufficient and in fact his own impressions were not liable to be proved, as such using the onerous standards of proving the guilt of the accused. It is true that the burden on the accused is always of a lighter nature. A pre-ponderance of the probability accrued even from the cross-examination could be said to discharge the burden cast on the accused. However, even that is not done in this case. Beyond saying that the accused believed that the non-applicant No. 1 was characterless, nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the applicant was justified in believing her to be characterless or was further justified in making the allegations of prostitution against her. The applicant has not stopped at making the allegations of prostitution but has also gone ahead saying that she used to receive 4 or 5 persons every month. This was an obnoxious and ugly allegation against an educated person made by not an un-cultured but an educated person himself. Under these circumstances, both the trial Court and the Appellate Court were right in returning the verdict of guilt and also convicting the accused. 8. Shri Ahmad thereafter in his pain-staking manner argued on the question of sentence. According to him, if the accused was sent behind the bars now at this juncture, there is every possibility of growing more enmity between the parties. He also suggested that the accused has now realised his mistake and has passed an unconditional and a clear cut apology and that in the evening of his life, the accused should not be sent behind the bars. Shri Mehadia has suggested that as a matter of fact the lady was extremely anguished on account of rash, reckless and ugly allegations made against her character. Shri Mehadia pointed out that the lady was a teacher and coming from the standard Muslim society. He, therefore, suggested that there must be some compensation awarded for the reckless act and for the anguish that she has suffered. As a matter of fact, it would be better if instead of his being sent to jail, the sentence of fine of accused is increased and the same is made payable to the complainant. That by itself would be a mitigating circumstances. As a matter of fact, it would be better if instead of his being sent to jail, the sentence of fine of accused is increased and the same is made payable to the complainant. That by itself would be a mitigating circumstances. Considering, therefore, the age of the accused being more than 50 years, white collared family background of the accused, the fact that he is educated and has realised his mistake and has passed an unqualified and unconditional apology to the complainant and has shown and expressed his own anguish over his having made allegations and has withdrawn the allegations and further considering that he has also assured the Court that he will not commit such offence again and further that there should be no malice between the parties on account of these bickerings, it will be better if accused is spared from going to jail and his jail sentence is reduced from 3 months to that till the rising of the Court and the accused, in addition to that, is fined to pay Rs. 2,500/-, which is made payable to the complainant. The Court realises that the sentence of fine is being enhanced in asmuch as previously the fine was Rs. 100/-. The Court has, therefore, given notice to the counsel for the applicant and Shri Ahmad has gracefully accepted the notice. In the result, the following order is passed : The revision is dismissed except with the modification in the sentence, which will be as follows :- The accused is present in the Court. He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the Court. In addition to that, he is sentenced to fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default he shall undergo imprisonment for one month. The amount of fine, if recovered shall be paid to the complainant by trial Court by summoning her for that purpose. The accused is granted two months time to pay the fine. Revision partly allowed. *****