Telangana High Court
Govind Raju Singh vs Raju Singh on 10 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.182 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
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
ETD,J
CCCA No.182_2019
2
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. 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
ETD,J
CCCA No.182_2019
3
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?”
ETD,J
CCCA No.182_2019
4
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
ETD,J
CCCA No.182_2019
5
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. 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.
ETD,J
CCCA No.182_2019
6
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 1 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
1
2006 (3) KLT 122
ETD,J
CCCA No.182_2019
7
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.
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
ETD,J
CCCA No.182_2019
8
another 2, 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 3, 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
2
Crl.M.C.No.759 of 2016, dated 16.02.2024
3
MANU/KA/3441/2020
ETD,J
CCCA No.182_2019
9
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
ETD,J
CCCA No.182_2019
10
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 4, it was held that the actions in
4
2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 776
ETD,J
CCCA No.182_2019
11
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. 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.
ETD,J
CCCA No.182_2019
12
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.
_________________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 10.06.2025
ns