In a suit filed before a Bangalore Court seeking a permanent and mandatory injunction to restrain the defendant’s defamatory acts, as well as a decree for damages of Rs. 2,00,000/-, the Court held that the defendant’s acts were illegal and found the plaintiff entitled to the reliefs prayed for.
The plaintiff met the defendant through an online dating platform on 18.11.2019, after which they were in a live-in relationship from December 2019 to June 2021. The plaintiff spent a substantial amount of money on the defendant for around 17-18 months. Subsequently, when the plaintiff realized that the defendant had no emotional attachment and was only with him for material reasons, he parted ways.
The defendant reacted inappropriately by abusing the plaintiff and threatening him with serious consequences. Thereafter, the defendant contacted the plaintiff to try to continue the relationship, but when the plaintiff refused, the defendant made frivolous accusations against him and sent him emails threatening to file a First Information Report against him.
The defendant sent an email to the plaintiff’s mother, describing the relationship in vulgar terms, and severely defamed and damaged the plaintiff’s reputation in front of his mother. She sent another email to the plaintiff in which she mentioned that the plaintiff was sexually involved with her 85 times and demanded Rs. 30 Lakhs. The defendant also sent emails to the plaintiff’s colleagues, seniors, college administration, and peers.
As the plaintiff suffered insult, social embarrassment, and mental harassment, he was afraid that the defendant would commit the same acts in the future by maligning his reputation. Hence, the present suit was filed.
While considering whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief as prayed, the Court stated that the burden was upon the plaintiff to prove his case by producing reliable and cogent evidence. It was noted that the evidence produced by the plaintiff was undisputed by the defendant. The Court found the defendant’s acts illegal and held the plaintiff entitled to relief.
Further, the Court held that the plaintiff was liable to be decreed with costs. Hence, the Court restrained the defendant from committing any defamatory acts against the plaintiff and from contacting any person associated with the plaintiff, either directly or indirectly. The Court directed the defendant to issue a public apology regarding the defamatory emails by way of a mandatory injunction. The defendant was also directed to pay damages of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the plaintiff within 3 months.
