The Bombay High Court has ruled that a wife's statement about her husband's impotency, made in the course of matrimonial proceedings like divorce, maintenance, or even in a police complaint, cannot be considered defamation under Indian Penal Code. Justice S.M. Modak made this observation while quashing a criminal complaint filed by the husband against his wife, her father, and her brother.
The decision came in the case of PVG vs VIG, where the husband had alleged that statements made by his wife in judicial and police proceedings defamed him. These included allegations that he was impotent, which the wife had cited in her divorce and maintenance petitions, as well as in an FIR.
Read Also:-Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea to Quash FIR Over Emoji Reaction to Operation Sindoor Posts
“In a Hindu Marriage Petition, the allegations of impotency are very much relevant,” Justice Modak said. “When the wife alleges that due to impotency it has caused mental cruelty to her, she is certainly justified in making those allegations.”
The Court clarified that these allegations are based on events during the couple’s marital life and are necessary to support her legal claims. Justice Modak noted that such statements fall within the ninth exception of Section 499 of the IPC, which protects imputations made in good faith for protecting one’s interest or for the public good.
The case had a long procedural history. Initially, the Magistrate had dismissed the husband's complaint under Section 203 of the CrPC, noting that no prima facie case of defamation or criminal intimidation was made. The Magistrate observed that the wife’s allegations were made during lawful proceedings and were directly related to the grounds she was raising in her legal actions.
There is nothing on record to show that the accused persons have given criminal intimidation to the complainant, the Magistrate had stated.
Read Also:-Bombay High Court Ruling on Land Sale Dispute: Unstamped Agreements Cannot Support Injunction Orders
Aggrieved by this dismissal, the husband approached the Sessions Court, which set aside the Magistrate’s order and directed a fresh inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC. However, the wife and her relatives challenged the Sessions Court’s order in the High Court.
Justice Modak found fault with the Sessions Court’s approach. The High Court noted that the Sessions Court had not addressed the original reasoning of the Magistrate or recorded any finding regarding the relevance of the allegations in the context of divorce.
“The Revisional Court remanded the matter on a ground which was not even taken in the memo of revision,” the High Court pointed out, adding that the complainant had never made a request to examine witnesses during the initial proceedings.
The Court further explained that under Articles 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC, it has the authority to intervene even at a stage before process is issued, especially when judicial process is being misused.
This Court feels that when the litigation is between both the spouses arising out of a matrimonial relationship, the wife is justified in making those allegations to support her interest, the judge stated. There is no judicial finding given by any Court in either way. So these allegations fall within the exception Ninth to Section 499 of IPC.
Read Also:-Bombay HC Rules: Spouse’s Taunts Over Skin Tone, Cooking Skills Don’t Amount to Abetment of Suicide
The Court finally allowed the writ petition and quashed the Sessions Court’s order, reaffirming the Magistrate's dismissal of the complaint under Sections 500, 506, and 34 of the IPC.
Appearance:
Advocates Shyam Dewani, Sachet Makhija, and Dashang Doshi (for the Petitioners)
Advocates Ghanshyam Mishra, Ekta Bhalerao, and Ekta Mistry (for the Husband)
Additional Public Prosecutor H.J. Dedhia (for the State)
Case Title: PVG vs VIG
Case No.: Criminal Writ Petition No. 2686 of 2024
Order Date: July 17, 2025
Judge: Justice S.M. Modak