CASE ANALYSIS

M C Verghese v. T J Ponnen (1970 AIR 1876, 1969 SCR (2) 692)

Facts of the case

T.J. Ponnan (Respondent) married Rathi, M.C. Verghese’s daughter. From Bombay, Ponnan
had addressed letters to Rathi, who was then staying with her parents in Trivandrum on July
18, 1964, July 25, 1964, and July 30, 1964. These letters were claimed to include defamatory
imputations against Verghese (Petitioner). Verghese then filed a suit against Ponnan in the
Court of the District Magistrate in Trivandrum, accusing him of defamation. Ponnan filed an
application in which he made two preliminary claims:

1. That the letters that formed the only basis of the complaint were inadmissible in
evidence because they were either forbidden from disclosure by law or were
expressly prohibited by law; and
2. That a husband’s utterance of a libel to his wife was not “publication” under
Indian law, and hence could not establish a defamation accusation, and requested
for a blanket order of dismissal, and applied that he be dismissed.
The Magistrate found that communication between spouses on a thing defamatory to another
did not amount to publishing as the husband and wife are one in the eye of the law. The
Magistrate also took into concern that no evidence could be produced against the respondent
with respect to the defamatory letters under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
and therefore released him.

The ruling was set aside and additional investigation into the complaint was directed in a
revision application filed by Verghese before the Court of Session. The learned Sessions
Judge believed that the English common law doctrine that communication by one spouse to
another of a matter defamatory of another person does not amount to publication, did not
apply in India and that Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not prevent the
complainant from proving the letters written by Ponnan to his wife before the Court. After
that, the matter was appealed to the Kerala High Court. The High Court overturned the Court
of Session’s decision and reinstated the District Magistrate’s decision.

The High Court held that the writing of defamatory matter by Ponnan to his wife Rathi was
not in law publication, and that “if the letters written by Ponnan to his wife cannot be proved
in court either by herself directly or through her father, in whose hands she had voluntarily
placed them, the imputations therein fell outside the court’s cognizance and no charge
under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860“ could be brought. The present case is an
appeal from the judgment and order dated November 1, 1966, of the Kerala High Court in
Criminal Revision Petition No. 191 of 1966.
 IRAC
ISSUE, RULE, ANALYSIS, CONCLUSION
ISSUE

1. Whether the husband is liable for Defamation of his Father-In- Law or not?

RULE

Defamation is the publication of statement which lowers the reputation of the person in the
right-thinking member of the society.

ESSENTIAL OF DEFAMATION:

1. Statement must be false and defamatory

2. Statement must refer to the Plaintiff
3. Statement must be published to the third party

ANALYSIS

In this case where the Plaintiff M.C. Verghese sued the defendant T.J. Ponnen for defamation
as the plaintiff sent a letter to her wife during separation and he wrote some defamatory
statement regarding his father-in-law. But here in this case, it didn’t fulfil one of the essential
of Defamation i.e. Statement must be published. Here, the plaintiff sent the letter which was
supposed to be read by her wife and was not meant to be published but his wife deliberately
made attempt for her father to read the letter. As the letter was a personal communication
between the husband and wife and the respondent didn’t intend to defame the plaintiff, if he
wanted to do so he may have done it in public instead of sending a letter.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the defendant was not held liable for defamation as it didn’t fulfil all the essentials
of defamation as the statement was not published and the wife deliberately made attempt to
make her father read the letter. The husband didn’t want the third party to know about such
statement as it was between husband and wife which was in their personal space. Hence, the
husband wasn’t held liable.
Contentions of the parties

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court of India by both the parties to the case
have been discussed here under.

Submissions by the petitioner/ respondent

The respondent in his letters to his wife, petitioner’s daughter, according to the petitioner, had
defamed him. He further claimed that the letters were in his possession and could be used in
the Court as proof.

Submissions by the respondent/ appellant

Ponnen, the respondent, on the other hand, claimed that the letters he sent to his wife are not
admissible in evidence unless he consents, under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, and that since the only publication pled is a publication to his wife, and she is
prohibited by law from exposing those letters, no case of defamation can be brought out.

Observation of this case

▪ The SC held that when the letters were written by the respondent herein to his

wife, they were husband and wife.

▪ The court quoted that bar to the admissibility in evidence of communications made

during marriage attaches at the time when the communication is made, and its

admissibility will be adjudged in the light of the status at the date and not the status at

the date when evidence is sought to be given in court.