Mary Kom’s former husband, Karong Onkholer, has filed a criminal defamation complaint against the Olympic boxing champion at Delhi’s Saket Court, alleging that her televised statements damaged his reputation. Onkholer approached the court on October 6, claiming the remarks harmed his personal image, financial integrity, and standing as a parent. The matter is before Judicial Magistrate First Class Shivam Gupta for pre-summoning evidence proceedings.

Onkholer filed the complaint under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, alleging that Mary Kom made defamatory statements during a television interview broadcast on January 11, 2026. According to the complaint, the remarks reached millions of viewers and portrayed him negatively, damaging his reputation in society. The court will examine the allegations and supporting evidence as part of the ongoing legal process.

What Did Mary Kom Allegedly Say?

The complaint alleges that the televised comments portrayed Onkholer as dishonest, unfaithful, unemployed, financially dependent on Mary Kom, and struggling with alcohol. He also claims the broadcast suggested that he misappropriated money from bank accounts and neglected his parental responsibilities towards their children. These allegations remain claims made in the complaint and have not been established as proven facts in court.

Mary Kom and Onkholer married on March 12, 2005, and lived together in Faridabad before their marriage was dissolved through customary practice on December 20, 2023, according to the complaint. Onkholer’s legal representatives, Advocates Akash Krishna and Pragati Sharma, argued that he had sacrificed his own career ambitions to support Mary Kom’s international boxing career during their marriage. They maintain that the televised remarks caused significant personal and professional harm.

The Saket Court has scheduled the matter for a pre-summoning evidence hearing on November 19, 2026. During the proceedings, the court will examine the initial evidence to determine whether further legal action, including issuing summons, is warranted. Given Mary Kom’s international reputation as a sporting icon, Onkholer argues that the statements carried considerable public influence. The case remains under judicial consideration, and no findings have yet established the allegations as fact.