In a landmark ruling, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court ruled that calling a person “impotent” amounts to defamation and it adversely reflects his manhood.
While dismissing wife’s application for discharge from the criminal proceedings initiated against her on husband’s complaint, the HC held that usage of such word constitute the offence of defamation. The ruling would help a lot of husbands facing divorce cases where “impotency” was often cited as one of the reasons by wives for separation along with dowry, domestic violence and harassment.
“Prima facie, the word ‘impotent’, when understood in plain and grammatical sense, reflects adversely upon person’s manhood and has a tendency to invite derisive opinions about him from others. Therefore, its usage and publication as contemplated under Section 499 (damage to reputation) would be sufficient to constitute the offence of defamation under Section 500 (punishment for defamation) of IPC,” a single-judge bench comprising justice Sunil Shukre held.
While refusing to interfere in the ongoing criminal proceedings, the judge clarified that even if the expression “impotent person” is read in all its contextual setting, particularly in the childbirth by adopting a medical procedure on gynecologist’s suggestion, still the apparent harm that the expression causes, is not diluted or washed out.
Disturbed over her allegations, the man lodged a complaint against wife and in-laws for defamation and offences under Sections 500 and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) of IPC. Subsequently, the judicial magistrate first class (JMFC) then instituted an inquiry. After receiving wife’s statement and examining witnesses’, he issued orders to register crime against wife under Sections 500 and 506 on July 24 last year, which she challenged in HC.
The wife contended that she wanted to avoid writing about husband’s impotency in her plea, but his conduct compelled her to write that their child was born by medical ovulation period technique as suggested by the gynecologist.
Justice Shukre observed that the petitioner had even issued a threat to husband of doing something to injure his reputation, if he didn’t follow her instructions.
“Reading her allegations without adding/subtracting anything from it, one gets an impression that it’s defamatory in character and has been, prima facie, calculated to cause harm or injury to husband’s reputation. It also gives an impression that apparently, it has been made with consciousness about the repercussion that such a statement would have on his life,” the judge said.
Source: TOI
