In a recent civil matter, the Supreme Court made an oral observation noting that while a husband and wife have distinct personal reputations, they also share a collective “family reputation.” Consequently, damage to the husband’s reputation could have an impact on the wife as well.
The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh, was hearing an appeal filed by Spunklane Media Private Limited — the parent company of the news portal The News Minute. The appeal challenged a Karnataka High Court order. At the heart of the case was the question of whether a wife could strengthen her claim in a suit seeking to restrain media coverage of a matter involving her husband by later joining him as a co-plaintiff.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, which had affirmed the Trial Court’s ruling allowing the wife to be added as a party in her husband’s defamation suit against the news portal.
While dismissing the appeal, Justice Surya Kant made the above remarks.
“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, definitely, that attack impairs the psychology, the emotions and the social reputation of other family members. And most importantly, the wife will suffer because of husband. Husband will suffer because of wife…This was one of your arguments before the High Court…It would be a very dangerous proposition that living under the same roof, husband has a separate reputation, wife has a separate reputation…they may have separate [reputation] also, but they have a common, integral and integrated reputation also that’s known as family reputation, a couple’s reputation, a husband-wife’s reputation.“
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the wife was not alleging defamation of the family as a whole, but was primarily concerned with the potential prejudice to her husband’s right to a fair trial. She further argued that a plaintiff (in this case, the wife) who originally lacked a valid cause of action cannot subsequently bolster her case by including another party (the husband) who may have a stronger legal claim.
In response, Justice Surya Kant observed that although the husband had the option to file a separate suit independently, it would lead to an unnecessary duplication of legal proceedings.
“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 judge questioned. “The cardinal principle of our jurisprudence is to avoid multiplicity…”, Justice Kant further said.
Addressing the issue of the husband’s non-joinder on account of his incarceration, the petitioner’s counsel argued that despite being in jail, he had successfully filed several petitions, including those seeking bail and quashing of proceedings. In response, Justice Surya Kant acknowledged the petitioner’s strong arguments on merits but expressed difficulty in accepting the “innovative argument” that a wife remains unaffected by damage to her husband’s reputation.
