Olympic medalist Mary Kom's ex-husband files defamation complaint against her

The complaint was filed on October 6, and the same is pending before the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Shivam Gupta for pre-summoning evidence. The matter will be heard by the court on November 19.

Renowned boxer Mary Kom's ex-husband has filed a defamation complaint against her in Delhi's Saket Court. It is alleged that during a TV interview, Kom made false, malicious and defamatory statements concerning the complainant, with the intention of harming. The complaint was filed on October 6, and the same is pending before the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Shivam Gupta for pre-summoning evidence. The matter will be heard by the court on November 19.

Complainant Karong Onkholer said that he was married to accused Mary Kom on March 12, 2005, and they thereafter resided together at Faridabad. The said marriage was dissolved by a Customary practice on December 20, 2023. The complainant has moved the court through advocates Akash Krishna and Pragati Sharma. It is stated that the Complainant, prior to and during the subsistence of the marriage, sacrificed his own career and professional pursuits in order to support and enable the professional career of Mary Kom.

This is stated as the true factual position between the parties, and directly contradicts the imputation made by her in the statements set out that the complainant has no career and has never been gainfully employed. The complainant said that Mary Kom is an internationally renowned boxing champion and public figure of very substantial standing, who has a wide public following and regularly appears on national television and other media platforms.

It is alleged that on January 11, 2026, after the said divorce, she appeared as a guest on the television programme of long standing which commands a viewership running into millions of persons across India. The complainant has alleged that, in the said TV programme and interview conducted before a live studio audience and thereafter telecast to the general public, she made the false, malicious and defamatory statements concerning the complainant, with the intention of harming, and with the knowledge and reason to believe that such statements would harm, the reputation of the complainant, each of which was published to the public at large by the channel by broadcasting the same, the same having been made and published after the dissolution of their marriage.

The complaint asserted that an ordinary, reasonable viewer of the said broadcast would understand from her statements, taken individually and collectively, that the complainant is a dishonest, unfaithful, unemployed, financially parasitic, alcohol dependent individual who has misappropriated money from her bank accounts and has abandoned all responsibility towards his own children; these imputations, which directly and severely lower his moral character, credit, and standing as a spouse and as a parent, within the meaning of Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (ANI)