V. Ramasami Naidu vs Chella Naidu

Muthusami Aiyar, J.—The question referred for our opinion is whether in cases in which a married woman is defamed by imputing unchastity

to her, her husband is a person aggrieved by the defamation, upon whose complaint the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence u/s 190 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am of opinion that our answer must be in the affirmative. The words "" aggrieved by such offence"" include the

husband in their ordinary meaning and his reputation is so intimately connected with that of his wife that it would be unreasonable to hold that the

defamation would ordinarily not be as much hurtful to the feelings of the former as it is to those of the latter. It is true that u/s 345 the wife may

without the consent of the husband and : even contrary to his wish compound the offence as "" the person defamed "" thereby rendering the

complaint made by the latter liable to be dismissed. But it must be observed that generally the husband and the wife will act in concert and that the

difference in the language used in Section 345 and Section 198 is therefore not a sufficient ground for. putting a narrower construction on Section

I answer the question in the affirmative.

Wilkinson, J.

I am of the same opinion and would only add that in this case the husband charged that the article had been published with the intention of

injuring the reputation of the husband and of his wife. He was entitled to a finding on the charge of defamation against himself and that charge no

one but himself could compound.