PRAMEELA RAVINDRAN Vs. P LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application filed by the applicant under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code to pass an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents and their men from making any defamatory statements about the applicant/plaintiff.

(2.) The case in brief is as follows :The applicant/plaintiff filed a suit seeking damages for acts of defamation committed by the respondents/defendants. The applicant married one Ravindran in 1983 at Mangulam Parasakthi Temple, East Pattom, Trivandrum, Kerala. There was an Agreement also on 16-12-1983 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Chalai, Kerala. Later, they moved to Chennai and did business. Ravindran died in October, 1998 and till then, none of the defendants disputed the validity of the marriage or the status of the applicant. After the death, the respondents have resorted to dispute the validity of the marriage in order to deprive her of the lawful share in the estate of her husband. The first respondent issued a lawyer's notice dated 20-11-1998 alleging that she was not the legally wedded wife. He had addressed three letters containing defamatory statements. On 23-11-1998 one letter was sent to Thiru K.M. Cherian, Manager-Sales, Instruments and Machines Inc., alleging that the deceased died as a bachelor leaving behind the first respondent as the only legal heir. After the receipt of this letter, he refused to co-operate with or take instructions from the applicant. He also discussed the contents of the letter with the other employees. Later, he resigned on 20-1-1999. Another letter on the same lines was also addressed to one Kutty Krishnan, Group Manager. Third letter was addressed to the Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Chennai. Dr. Gopalakrishnan, Medical Director of Premier Diagnostic and Research Centre has been influenced by these defamatory statements and now refuses to report to the applicant or to take instructions from her. The respondents have systematically proceeded to tarnish her reputation among the various group concerns established by her husband. She has got a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also in her favour. Hence, the petition.

(3.) The second respondent filed a counter, adopted by the first respondent. They denied the various allegations made in the affidavit. They also denied the alleged marriage as well as the alleged agreement. The first respondent is the mother while the second respondent is the brother of the deceased. The applicant is a poor Brahmin settled down in Trivandrum. She was working as a Receptionist in a comparatively low grade hotel in Trivandrum and the entire family was maintained from her earnings. The deceased Ravindran had relationship with several women and one of them was perhaps the applicant herein. To the best of the knowledge, the applicant had not married anyone and the applicant cannot claim the status as his widow. It is possible that Ravindran could have relationship with her. If the applicant is able to produce any marriage certificate as evidence of her marriage, it can be accepted. The Agreement dated 14-12-1983 cannot have any legal sanction. They have not made any defamatory statement against the applicant but only pointed out the truth. They have no intention of making any defamatory statements and, as such, the application is liable to be dismissed.