Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : Application filed by the applicant under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code to pass an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents and their men from making any defamatory statements about the applicant/plaintiff. 2. The case in brief is as follows : The applicant/plaintiff filed a suit seeking damages for acts of defamation committed by the respondents/defendants. The applicant married one Ravindran in 1983 at Mangulam Parasakthi Temple, East Pattom, Trivandrum, Kerala. There was an Agreement also on 16-12-1983 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Chalai, Kerala. Later, they moved to Chennai and did business. Ravindran died in October, 1998 and till then, none of the defendants disputed the validity of the marriage or the status of the applicant. After the death, the respondents have resorted to dispute the validity of the marriage in order to deprive her of the lawful share in the estate of her husband. The first respondent issued a lawyer's notice dated 20-11-1998 alleging that she was not the legally wedded wife. He had addressed three letters containing defamatory statements. On 23-11-1998 one letter was sent to Thiru K. M. Cherian, Manager-Sales, Instruments and Machines Inc., alleging that the deceased died as a bachelor leaving behind the first respondent as the only legal heir. After the receipt of this letter, he refused to co-operate with or take instructions from the applicant. He also discussed the contents of the letter with the other employees. Later, he resigned on 20-1-1999. Another letter on the same lines was also addressed to one Kutty Krishnan, Group Manager. Third letter was addressed to the Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Chennai. Dr. Gopalakrishnan, Medical Director of Premier Diagnostic and Research Centre has been influenced by these defamatory statements and now refuses to report to the applicant or to take instructions from her. The respondents have systematically proceeded to tarnish her reputation among the various group concerns established by her husband. She has got a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also in her favour. Hence, the petition. 3. The second respondent filed a counter, adopted by the first respondent. They denied the various allegations made in the affidavit. They also denied the alleged marriage as well as the alleged agreement. She has got a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also in her favour. Hence, the petition. 3. The second respondent filed a counter, adopted by the first respondent. They denied the various allegations made in the affidavit. They also denied the alleged marriage as well as the alleged agreement. The first respondent is the mother while the second respondent is the brother of the deceased. The applicant is a poor Brahmin settled down in Trivandrum. She was working as a Receptionist in a comparatively low grade hotel in Trivandrum and the entire family was maintained from her earnings. The deceased Ravindran had relationship with several women and one of them was perhaps the applicant herein. To the best of the knowledge, the applicant had not married anyone and the applicant cannot claim the status as his widow. It is possible that Ravindran could have relationship with her. If the applicant is able to produce any marriage certificate as evidence of her marriage, it can be accepted. The Agreement dated 14-12-1983 cannot have any legal sanction. They have not made any defamatory statement against the applicant but only pointed out the truth. They have no intention of making any defamatory statements and, as such, the application is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. 5. The point that arises for consideration is that whether the applicant has got prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in her favour? 6. Point : The applicant/plaintiff claims herself to be the wife of deceased Ravindran. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the plaintiff married the said Ravindran in 1983 in the temple at Trivandrum and later, an agreement was also entered into between them on 14-12-1983 on the file of Sub Registrar, Chalai, Kerala. Both of them moved to Chennai and did the business. Till the life of Ravindran, the respondents have not chosen to dispute the validity of the marriage and only on the demise of Ravindran, the first respondent issued lawyer's notice dated 20-1-1998 alleging that the applicant is not the legally wedded wife. He had also addressed three letters on 23-11-1998 containing defamatory statements to three persons and because of this, the applicant has come forward with a suit, claiming damages and also the relief of permanent injunction. 7. He had also addressed three letters on 23-11-1998 containing defamatory statements to three persons and because of this, the applicant has come forward with a suit, claiming damages and also the relief of permanent injunction. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that there is no record to show that the applicant/plaintiff married the said Ravindran. The alleged agreement would not be valid under law. To their knowledge, Ravindran had not married either the plaintiff or any other person. He died as a bachelor and whatever letter sent by them was only truth and they have no intention whatsoever to defame the applicant. 8. The applicant has filed typed set of documents to show that she has got prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in her favour. Receipt dated 14-12-1983 has been filed to show that the amount has been paid in the Temple for the purpose of marriage. The copy of the Marriage Certificate dated 10-1-1984 was issued by Mangulam Parasakthi Temple authorities, wherein it is stated about the marriage between Prameela and one Ravindran. Apart from that, the marriage agreement between Prameela and Ravindran dated 14-12-1983 is also filed. The deceased had taken LIC policy dated 12-1-1997, wherein the applicant is described as his wife. Even in the passport, she had been described as the wife of Ravindran. The aforesaid documents have been pressed into service by the applicant in order to show that she has been described as the wife of the deceased. It is therefore, evidently clear that the applicant has got prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also in her favour. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the deceased died as a bachelor and he had not married anyone. When several documents have been filed by the applicant, the burden is only upon the respondents to show that they have been created for the purpose of this case. The validity or otherwise of these documents can be established on the basis of legal evidence; but for the purpose of this application, there is no reason to reject the documents filed by the applicant. Even in the LIC policy the deceased had shown the applicant as the wife, is a strong piece of evidence to prima facie establish the case of the applicant. It is further stated that there are other cases also between the parties. Even in the LIC policy the deceased had shown the applicant as the wife, is a strong piece of evidence to prima facie establish the case of the applicant. It is further stated that there are other cases also between the parties. However, I am of the view that the respondents have no right to address third parties disputing the validity of the marriage when the matter is pending before a Court of Law. It appears that the respondents are deliberately sending communications to the third parties only to harass and annoy the applicant. Whatever be the objections, it is always open to the respondents to putforth the same in the Court and establish their case. There is no necessity or provocation on the part of the respondents to send any communication to the third parties relating to legality or otherwise of the marriage of the applicant with the said Ravindran. In the circumstance considering the documents filed on the side of the applicant. I am of the view that the balance of convenience is also in favour of the applicant and the respondents should be restrained from making or sending any letters relating to the status of the applicant pending disposal of the suit. 10. For the reasons stated above, the application is allowed. The respondents are restrained from making any statements or sending any letters to third parties regarding the status of the applicant pending disposal of the suit. Application allowed.