The Supreme Court of India emphasized that a wife can also suffer reputational harm if her husband’s image is defamed, underlining the concept of a “shared family reputation.”
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh made this remark while hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP No. 7741/2025) filed by Spunklane Media Private Limited, the parent company of the news platform The News Minute. The petition challenged a Karnataka High Court decision that had affirmed a trial court's order allowing the wife to join as a co-plaintiff in her husband's defamation suit against media outlets.
“A woman, a man... two persons... individually can suffer in terms of reputation. But definitely, if they are living together as husband and wife, and if they are a family, when you attack one, it impairs the psychology, emotions, and social reputation of the other. Most importantly, the wife will suffer because of the husband; the husband will suffer because of the wife. It would be dangerous to say that under the same roof, the husband and wife have entirely separate reputations,”
— Justice Surya Kant
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Specific Performance Suit Invalid Without Challenging Cancellation of Sale Agreement
Background of the Case
The controversy stemmed from a defamation suit originally filed by the wife while her husband was in judicial custody. The wife sought to restrain certain media houses from publishing material related to a criminal case involving her husband. Later, she requested that her husband be impleaded as a co-plaintiff in the suit.
Spunklane Media challenged this impleadment, arguing that the wife had no personal cause of action and was attempting to strengthen her position by later adding her husband as a party. They also pointed out that the husband, even while in jail, had filed various other petitions (like bail and quashing applications), and hence, his absence could not justify his non-joinder initially.
“If a suit can be filed by him, and a suit has already been filed by his wife while he was in jail, why to have multiplicity of suits? The cardinal principle of our jurisprudence is to avoid multiplicity...”
— Justice Surya Kant
Read Also:- Delhi MLA Amanatullah Khan Challenges Waqf Amendment Bill in SC, Citing Violation of Muslim Rights
After carefully considering the arguments, the apex court refused to interfere with the High Court’s ruling. It concluded that no case was made out under Article 136 of the Constitution to warrant overturning the impleadment order.
“In our considered view, no case to interfere with the order passed by the Civil Court, as affirmed by the High Court, is made out...”— Order of the Supreme Court (01 April 2025)
Furthermore, the court took note of a temporary injunction issued by the trial court on June 17, 2023, which restrained Spunklane Media and other outlets from publishing further content related to the matter. The petitioner informed the court that a reply to the ad-interim injunction application had already been filed.
While not delving into the merits of the injunction, the Supreme Court directed the trial court to expedite its decision on the application for interim relief in accordance with the law.
The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, with the Supreme Court reiterating the importance of procedural economy and upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The case underscores the judiciary’s recognition of the emotional and social interconnectedness of spouses, particularly in the context of public defamation and media scrutiny.
All pending applications were also disposed of along with the main petition.
Case Title: SPUNKLANE MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus NIVEDITA SINGH AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 7741/2025
