The Supreme Court of India acknowledged the concept of "family reputation", stating that a wife's reputation can be negatively impacted by defamation against her husband, even if they individually possess separate reputations.
The case involved an appeal by Spunklane Media Private Limited against a Karnataka High Court order allowing a wife to join her husband's suit against the news portal for defamation. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the interconnectedness of the husband's and wife's reputations.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the lower courts' decisions to allow the wife's participation in the case.
In a civil matter, the Supreme Court recently observed orally that while a husband and wife have individual reputations, there is also something called "family reputation" and a wife is likely to be affected by anything that tends to lower her husband's reputation.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with an appeal filed by Spunklane Media Private Limited(which owns the news portal 'The News Minute) against an order of the Karnataka High Court. It involved an issue as to whether a wife, by way of subsequent impleadment of her husband (as co-plaintiff), can acquire better title in a suit to restrain media houses from publishing about a case against the husband.
The Court did not interfere with the High Court's order which affirmed the Trial Court's decision allowing the wife to join as a party in her husband's suit against the news portal.
Disposing of the appeal, Justice Kant said,
"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 tried to convince the court that it was not the wife's claim that the family had been defamed, but rather, that her husband's right to free trial was being affected. She further urged that a plaintiff (the wife) who does not initially have a cause of action cannot acquire a better right at a later stage by joining somebody who purportedly has a better right (the husband).
Justice Kant, in response, underlined that the husband can file a fresh suit in his own right, but the same would only lead to multiplicity of litigation.
"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.
The petitioner's counsel countered the husband's non-joinder (on account of his being in jail) by informing that several other petitions (for bail, quashing, etc.) were filed by him while in jail. With regard to this, Justice Kant observed that though the petitioner had good grounds on merits, it was difficult to accept the "innovative argument" that when a husband's reputation is damaged, wife does not suffer.
Appearance for the petitioner :Ms. Pritha Srikumar Iyer, AOR, Ms. Tanvi Tuhina, Adv
Case Title: SPUNKLANE MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus NIVEDITA SINGH AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 7741/2025
Skip the extension — just come straight here.
We’ve built a fast, permanent tool you can bookmark and use anytime.
Go To Paywall Unblock Tool