Law:

Section:

  Defamation--- ----Damages---Allegations in divorce deed made by defendant (husband) and certificate issued by co-defendant (Doctor) relating to purported ailment of plaintiff (wife), were claimed to be mala fide and same were given wide publicity by defendant to cause damage to plaintiff---Husband, under Muhammadan Law, could always divorce his wife by pronouncing Talaq and no written document would be necessary for doing so---Even if husband wanted to divorce his wife through written document he was not required to assign any reason whatsoever---If primary reason for terminating marital tie was stubborn attitude of wife in refusing to come to marital home and not her health condition, defendant could have confined himself to saying so---Defendant, however, in divorce deed consciously chose to allege that plaintiff (wife) was suffering from gynaecological disease prior to solemnization of marriage, that she had urinary tract infection of serious nature; and that she used to return home very late and always pretended that she had gone to see her mother or friends---Allegation to the effect that plaintiff suffered from gynaecological disease and had been so suffering prior to her marriage was per se defamatory--Further, statement in divorce deed that plaintiff used to come home late and could pretend that she had gone to visit her mother or some friend unquestionably showed that defendant was attempting to attribute unchastity or immorality to plaintiff---No need was pointed out to make such allegations in divorce deed while marriage could be terminated without making such imputations---Such statement was, thus, made and circulated maliciously- -Imputations made in divorce deed were calculated to defame plaintiff--Imputations in question were not made by defendant in his written statement but in altogether different document i.e. divorce deed which was required to be communicated to concerned union council for being given legal effect and was, admittedly, executed well before proceedings in Court commenced, therefore, defendant could not claim privilege with regard to statement in question--Contents of divorce deed were defamatory of plaintiff and were…