A sessions court here has upheld summons issued to a woman and her associate for allegedly defaming her husband by spreading fabricated pornographic material of her in-laws,purportedly downloaded from Orkut.com,to the seniors in his office.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Rajeev Bansal upheld the order of magisterial court passed in October 2009 and rejected the revision petition of the two women.
The magistrate’s court had issued summonses to the woman and her associate on the defamation suit filed by the husband,working in a private bank’s insurance arm,alleging that she visited his office in his absence and gave some “fabricated documents and printouts of pornographic profile of his mother activated on website Orkut.com”.
The man told the court that due to his wife’s behaviour,his company asked him to submit his resignation failing which they could terminate his services and,hence,he had to resigned from the job.
The woman had filed the revision petition before the sessions court,challenging the summonses issued saying that her husband had filed false complaint as a “counter-blast” to matrimonial litigation instituted by her on which non-bailable warrants were issued against him,his parents and brother.
She said that her husband has not been able to prove that before whom has his reputation been damaged and,hence,the summonses issued against her should be set aside.
The sessions court rejected her revision plea and said that she went to the office of her husband in his absence and gave objectionable material regarding his mother “that in itself is sufficient to injure the reputation of the complainant (husband) in his office”.
The judge said,”Mental trauma a person would undergo at such allegations,in his office,is anybody’s imagination.
“Such news spreads like fire in offices and no person can be said to be not effected in his reputation by such incidents. As such,I do not find any merit in this revision petition which is hereby dismissed”.
The court also referred to the statement of the regional manager of the company,who,while deposing as a complainant witness before the magisterial court,had said that the woman came to him and supplied objectionable material to him and his senior colleague and other persons working in the office.