Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2113 (MAD)

F. Asir Prakash v. J. Emily Merlyn Shyla

2010-05-01

M.CHOCKALINGAM, T.RAJA

body2010
Judgment :- M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. This appeal challenges the order of the learned single Judge made in O.A.No.455 of 2007 seeking interim injunction to restrain the appellant/defendant from committing any kind of defamation regarding the character of the respondent/plaintiff to any third parties whomsoever, pending disposal of the civil suit. 2. The said application was taken up for consideration by the learned single Judge. After hearing the parties and looking into the materials available, the learned single Judge has passed an order which reads as follows: "Because of the friction between the husband and wife, the respondent/husband has preferred O.P.No.152 of 2006 before the I Additional Family Court, Chennai for divorce against the applicant/wife. Counter affidavit has been filed by the applicant/wife and the said O.P. is contested hotly. Pending O.P. the respondent/husband appears to have gone and informed her relatives and his relatives made certain remarks which are highly derogatory to her image and reputation. Those words uttered by the respondent/husband have been heard and listened by the people in the College aware that the applicant/plaintiff is working. Even she was informed by her relative about the defamatory words spoken by the husband affecting her character and interest. 11. Therefore, taking totality of the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the prima facie case has been made out by the applicant/plaintiff as the respondent is uttering defamatory words with intention to cause damage to the reputation of the applicant/wife. It has been done in bad faith. When the matter is pending before the matrimonial Court which is yet to take a view in the matter, the respondent/husband should not indulge in such a scurrilous, vituperating and scandalous allegations." 12. In the result, the applicant/plaintiff is entitled to an order of interim injunction as prayed for. There will be an order of interim injunction as prayed for." Aggrieved over the same, the appellant/defendant has brought forth this appeal. 3. Pending the appeal, an affidavit is filed by the appellant stating that he undertakes not to make any allegation regarding the character of the respondent to any third party. 4. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side. 5. The civil suit is pending. 3. Pending the appeal, an affidavit is filed by the appellant stating that he undertakes not to make any allegation regarding the character of the respondent to any third party. 4. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side. 5. The civil suit is pending. The issue, whether the statement made by the defendant are defamatory statement and whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief asked for, has got to be decided by the trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, both oral and documents to be let in by the parties. Now, the only question arises for consideration is whether the injunction which has been granted by the trial Court has got to be continued. 6. An undertaking is given by the appellant/defendant stating that he will not make any allegation regarding the character of the respondent to any third parties. The Court is of the considered opinion that it would be suffice. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent pointing to clause 2-c of the affidavit filed by the appellant would submit that no proceedings are pending before the eccelesiastical authorities. Hence, this particular clause is not necessary. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has no knowledge about the disposal of the same. However, the Court is of the considered opinion that, whether the eccelesiastical proceedings are pending or disposed of, is nothing to do with the present appeal before this Court. 8. The undertaking given by the appellant in paragraph 5 of the affidavit that "I hereby undertake not to make any allegation regarding the character of the Respondent to any third parties," is hereby recorded. 9. Without going into the merits or otherwise of the rival contentions putforth, recording the undertaking given by the appellant as referred to above, the appeal is disposed of leaving the parties to bear their costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.