|Case name||Prameela Ravindran v. P. Lakshmikutty Amma|
|Court||Madras High Court|
|Decided on||Pronounced on : June 16 , 2000|
|Relevant statute||Injunction against Publication of Defamatory Statement ,Law of Torts|
|Citation||A.I.R 2001 Mad. 225|
Facts and Procedural History of the case :
- According to the facts of the case , the marriage between the applicant (Prameela Ravindran) and the deceased was disputed by the respondent (P. Lakshmikutty Amma) , who was the mother of the deceased.
- The plaintiff married 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.
- Ravindran died in October , 1998 and till then , none of the defendants disputed the validity of the marriage .
- After the death , the respondents had resorted to dispute the validity of marriage in order to deprive her of the lawful share in the estate of her husband.
- The respondent sent letters containing defamatory statements to various persons relating to marital status.
Issues raised :
- The point that arises for consideration is that whether the applicant has got prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in her favour ?
Contentions by plaintiff :
- The plaintiff contended that she was the wife of the deceased Ravindran.
- In order to prove herself , She produced a marriage certificate dated 10.11.1984 issued by the temple authorities.
- Apart from that she produced an agreement of marriage and also the L.I.C policy and passport wherein the applicant has been described as Ravindran’s wife.
- Thus , the prima facie evidence andbalance of convenience were in favour of applicant.
Contentions by Respondent :
- Learned Counsel for Respondent Contended that the deceased died as bachelor and he had not married anyone.
Principles laid down / Ratio Decendi :
If the statement is likely to injure the reputation of a person , the person making such statement can be restrained from doing so and injunction to the same can be granted.
- The respondents are restrained from making any statements or sendind any letters to third parties regarding the status of the applicant pending disposal of the suit.
- The marriage was held to be valid.
Dissected by Suyash Tripathi