Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 874 (TS)

Govind Raju Singh v. Raju Singh

2025-06-10

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
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. 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 prayed for? 2. To what relief?” 7. At the time of trial, the plaintiff got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A21. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 was examined but no documents are marked. 8. 2. To what relief?” 7. At the time of trial, the plaintiff got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A21. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 was examined but no documents are marked. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff. 9. Heard the submissions of Sri S.Srikanth, learned counsel for the appellant. He has submitted that the judgment of the trial Court suffers from non-application of judicial mind and that it is contrary to law and evidence. He further submitted that the trial Court has failed to observe that the pleadings and statements made by defendants are false and ought to have believed the plaintiff’s evidence and ought to have decreed the suit. He further argued that the trial Court ought to have given weight to the FSL report under Ex.A9 before the trial Court, which clearly discloses that on a requisition made by defendant No.1 herein, the Family Court has sent the defendant No.1 herein, Shashikala and their Child to DNA test and that defendant No.1 is proved to be the biological father of their child. Thus, the allegations made by defendant No.1 in the said divorce petition are proved to be false. He further argued that the trial Court ought to have observed the said pleadings of defendant No.1 in the FCOP to be defamatory against him and ought to have decreed the suit. 10. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. 11. Based on the above submissions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages claimed by him from the defendant Nos.1 and 2? 2) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is sustainable in law and under the facts? 3) To what relief? 12. POINT NO.1 a) Admittedly Shashikala and defendant No.1 i.e. Raju Singh got married on 24.04.2002 and due to the differences that arose between them an FCOP No.806 of 2007 was filed by Raju Singh. A perusal of Ex.A1, the judgment delivered by the Family Court on 31.12.2010 discloses that the said Raju Singh has alleged adultery against Shashikala and the plaintiff herein and it is alleged by him that the said girl child was born out of the said illicit intimacy. A perusal of Ex.A1, the judgment delivered by the Family Court on 31.12.2010 discloses that the said Raju Singh has alleged adultery against Shashikala and the plaintiff herein and it is alleged by him that the said girl child was born out of the said illicit intimacy. Thereafter, the Family Court has referred them to DNA test and the expert opinion was obtained under Ex.C1 and the said Ex.C1 is marked as Ex.A9 in the present suit. b) A perusal of the said FSL report reveals that the said Raju Singh is the biological father of female child of Shashikala and that the plaintiff herein is not the biological father of the said female child. However, the trial Court has observed the said fact with regard to the paternity of the girl child and further has decreed the divorce OP dissolving the marriage between Shashikala and Raju Singh by holding that Shashikala is not willing to join the society of her husband Raju Singh as he made allegations of adultery against her. c) Now the question around which the present suit revolves around is whether the said pleadings in the family Court OP involving the allegation of adultery against the plaintiff herein with Shashikala amounts to defamation. The contention of the appellant’s counsel is that pleadings in Court proceedings amounts to publication and thus, the appellant is entitled to the relief of claiming damages against the defendants. d) To prove his point, the appellant counsel has relied upon a judgment of Kerala High Court in Prabhakaran v . Gangadharan, 2006 (3) KLT 122 wherein according to the complainant the suit was filed by his wife for partition and that he is not a party to the suit and in the written statement filed in the said suit, it is stated that certain imputations were made against the complainant which is susceptible to harm his reputation. Thus, he filed a complaint against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Section 500 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Thus, he filed a complaint against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Section 500 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Whereupon, the accused have sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the High Court, then, the High Court has observed that “it is the duty of the accused to establish that they are justified in making such a statement under any of the exceptions to Section 499 of IPC and without considering the evidence to be adduced and defence to be set up, it is not possible to come to a finding whether the statements contained in the written statement are defamatory or not”. Thus, the High Court refused to quash the proceedings but in the present case, the trial is already completed in the Family Court and the said pleadings are now treated as defamatory statements by the plaintiff herein, basing on which he is seeking for damages. It is after a full-fledged trial that the trial Court has dismissed the suit observing that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any damages and thus, the facts of the aforesaid decision do not apply to the case on hand. e) The counsel has further relied upon a judgment of Kerala High Court in Xavier Pollayil v. Ch.Chandrabhanu and another , [Crl. M.C. No. 759 of 2016 dated 16.02.2024] , wherein it was held that “as far as the question whether a statement made before a Court of law by way of pleadings would attract the offence under Section 499 read with Section 500 IPC or not is concerned, the same is already settled by various decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the High Courts” and it was held that “if the pleadings filed in a Court containing defamatory statement, it amounts to publication, if it contains, defamatory statement”. f) The learned counsel also relied upon another decision in Sushma Rani Vs. H.N. Nagaraja Rao , MANU/KA/3441/2020 , wherein it was held that defamatory statements in pleadings, petitions, affidavits etc., of the parties to the judicial proceedings constitute an offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC unless they fall within the exceptions enumerated in Section 499 of IPC. g) The said facts are again elicited through the evidence of witnesses. H.N. Nagaraja Rao , MANU/KA/3441/2020 , wherein it was held that defamatory statements in pleadings, petitions, affidavits etc., of the parties to the judicial proceedings constitute an offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC unless they fall within the exceptions enumerated in Section 499 of IPC. g) The said facts are again elicited through the evidence of witnesses. A perusal of the oral evidence reveals the said facts with regard to the OP No.806 of 2007 before the family Court. To a specific question posed by the defendants counsel as to whether the plaintiff has mentioned the names of persons before whom defendant No.1 defamed him and thereby he lost his personal respect, he has answered that he has not mentioned any names of such persons. The contention of the defendants is to the effect that in order to resolve the disputes in family life that OP was filed and that cannot be a ground for seeking defamation, it was a legal proceeding through which the defendant No.1 herein had to pursue his legal remedies in his family matter and that the said pleadings would not amount to defamation and that the plaintiff is not entitled to seek any damages from them. Dr.S.Goutami is examined as PW3 through her once again FSL report with regard to the DNA test of defendant No.1, his wife Shashikala and baby Sanjana was brought on record as Ex.A9. Nothing much was elicited during her cross examination to discredit her evidence. h) PW2 is the president of Nava Yuva Yoga Rajakasanga and in his chief examination he has stated that in a panchayath held with the caste elders to resolve the dispute among Shashikala and Raju Singh, Raju Singh has uttered allegations in front of all the caste elders that the plaintiff herein has illicit relationship with Shashikala and thus, it resulted in loss of reputation to the plaintiff herein. Exs.A19 to A21 are filed to prove his identity as one of the elders in Rajaka caste and that he is a member of welfare sangh. Though PW2 has supported the case of PW1, the only question that has to be answered by this Court is whether the pleadings made in the Family Court amount to defamation or not. Exs.A19 to A21 are filed to prove his identity as one of the elders in Rajaka caste and that he is a member of welfare sangh. Though PW2 has supported the case of PW1, the only question that has to be answered by this Court is whether the pleadings made in the Family Court amount to defamation or not. i) Defendant No.1 got himself examined as DW1 and he admitted all the facts with regard to the filing of O.P.No.806 of 2007 and also with regard to the maintenance case filed by Shashikala against him. He admitted that he has not paid any maintenance to Shashikala and Sanjana and that he was sent to jail for four times. j) All these facts do not aid the case of the plaintiff to prove that he is entitled to claim damages from the defendants. The evidence of all these witnesses throw light upon the said fact of the family disputes between Shashikala and Raju Singh and the filing of cases against each other and also that they were referred to DNA analysis and the DNA report therein. The question that has to be addressed in the present case is only with regard to the entitlement of plaintiff to claim damages against Raju Singh for making allegations against him in his pleadings before the family Court. k) In Dhulipalla Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P. Rep. by its P.P. Hyderabad and another , 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 776 , it was held that the actions in question were part of judicial proceedings and carried out by court officers, not by the petitioner personally. As there was no evidence of malicious intent and the actions were procedural in nature, executed under judicial authority, they were deemed protected by absolute privilege. l) The aforesaid decision of our own High Court throws light on the said fact that the pleadings, legal proceedings in the Court of law do not amount to defamatory statements. One would prosecute a case to find a remedy in his own case and pleadings form a part of it and thus, they cannot be construed as defamatory statements and damages cannot be awarded if claimed in such cases. Therefore, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages from the defendants. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 13. Therefore, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages from the defendants. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 13. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point No.1, it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are found to be well reasoned and hence, they are held to be sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding 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. No costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.