In a recent civil proceeding, the Supreme Court orally observed that while spouses maintain individual reputations, they also share a collective “family reputation.” As such, harm to a husband’s reputation could extend to his 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 — challenging a Karnataka High Court order. The central issue was whether a wife could strengthen her claim in a suit seeking to restrict media coverage of an issue involving her husband by subsequently joining him as a co-plaintiff.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, which affirmed the Trial Court’s order permitting the wife to be added as a party in her husband’s defamation case against the media outlet.
Justice Surya Kant made the above observations while dismissing the appeal.
“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 argued that the wife was not claiming defamation of the family as a unit, but was mainly focused on the potential impact the publication could have on her husband’s right to a fair trial. She further contended that a plaintiff — in this instance, the wife — who initially lacked a valid cause of action cannot later strengthen her case by joining another party, namely the husband, who might possess a more substantial legal claim.
In response, Justice Surya Kant noted that while the husband could have initiated a separate lawsuit on his own, doing so would result in an avoidable 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.
Responding to the issue of the husband’s non-joinder due to his imprisonment, the petitioner’s counsel contended that despite being incarcerated, he had actively pursued legal remedies, including filing bail applications and petitions for quashing proceedings. In reply, Justice Surya Kant acknowledged the petitioner’s compelling arguments on merit but found it difficult to accept the “innovative argument” that a wife remains unaffected by harm to her husband’s reputation.
