In a recent civil case, the Supreme Court orally remarked that although a husband and wife have their own individual reputations, they also share a “family reputation,” and any harm to the husband’s reputation could also affect the wife.
The bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh was hearing an appeal by Spunklane Media Private Limited, the owner of the news portal The News Minute, challenging a Karnataka High Court order. The case revolved around whether a wife, by subsequently adding her husband as a co-plaintiff, could strengthen her claim in a suit seeking to prevent media outlets from reporting on a case involving her husband.
The Court upheld the High Court’s ruling, which had affirmed the Trial Court’s decision permitting the wife to be added as a party in her husband’s suit against the news portal.
While disposing of the appeal, Justice Surya Kant remarked,
“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, but was instead concerned about her husband’s right to a fair trial being compromised. She further contended that a plaintiff (the wife) who lacked an initial cause of action cannot strengthen her position later by adding someone (the husband) who allegedly has a stronger claim.
In response, Justice Surya Kant noted that while the husband could file a separate suit on his own, doing so would result in unnecessary multiplicity of 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 incarceration, the petitioner’s counsel pointed out that he had still managed to file multiple petitions, including for bail and quashing, while in jail. Addressing this, Justice Surya Kant acknowledged that the petitioner had strong arguments on merits but found it hard to accept the “innovative argument” that a wife remains unaffected when her husband’s reputation is harmed.