Allahabad HC Temporarily Restrains 2 Women From Publishing Claims Of Daughter & Wife Relation With Actor Ravi Kishan

A bench of Justice Alok Mathur passed this order on a plea filed by Kishan's wife who had moved the HC challenging last week's order of a Civil Court in Lucknow declining to issue any direction restraining the alleged mother-daughter duo from publishing any material against Kishan and his family members.

Importantly, the order of the Allahabad High Court is valid for only one week, until a court in Lucknow decides afresh on an application filed by Kishan's wife to restrain the two women from publishing any material against Kishan and his family.

The case in brief

Essentially, Ravi Kishan's wife (Priti Ravindra Shukla) filed a suit before a Civil Court in Lucknow for a decree of mandatory injunction against the opposite parties No. 1 (mother) and 2 (daughter) be commanded to refrain from holding themselves out as the wife and daughter of Kishan.

She also sought an ad-interim injunction against the opposite parties for making fresh claims in media or elsewhere.

While the Civil Court issued notices to the defendants, it declined to pass any ex-parte interim injunction in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order, Kishan's wife moved the instant petition before the HC.

Before the single judge, her counsel contended that after more than 25 years, respondent No. 2, for the first time, claimed that Kishan was her biological father, and no claim was made by her at any time prior.

It was submitted that the said allegations are on their face, false and baseless and directly impinge upon the matrimonial reputation of the petitioner and her family and have been done only in an effort to defame, harass and malign the family of the petitioner and lower their reputation and esteem in the eyes of the public considering that the husband of the petitioner is contesting the forthcoming elections.

It was strongly contended that the trial Court should have considered her application for ad interim injunction at this stage, considering that the opposite parties are making reckless allegations against Kishan and the reputation of the entire family is at stake.

It was further submitted that spreading such material/news through social media and other means is defaming the petitioner and her family, and such defamation continues daily, as fresh messages are circulated on social media.

High Court's observations

Considering the facts of the present, the Court noted that the opposite parties have made a claim before a Civil Court in Mumbai by filing a suit for declaration and injunction. Such a claim is yet to be established before the trial court, and until then, it will only remain the “alleged claim” of the opposite parties.

On the other hand, the Court observed that Kishan and his wife have a right to their reputation which they can legally and validly seek to preserve against vague, false and frivolous allegations.

The Court noted that the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the petitioner, in as much as the opposite parties have already brought the said fact/allegations in the public domain by holding a press conference which has been widely covered by the print, electronic and social media, but on the other hand the petitioner seeks to restrain them from further publishing and disseminating the disputed content pertaining to the parentage of opposite party No. 2 in the social media as it would tend to defame the matrimonial relationship of the petitioner further.

“…undoubtedly there is urgency in the matter, as the opposite parties are further disseminating the disputed content on social media. Damage to reputation would undoubtedly cause irreparable damage and cannot be fully compensated by the award of damages,” the Court further remarked.

Accordingly, the Court held that the trial court's denial of the interim temporary injunction without considering the relevant aspects as discussed above was arbitrary, in as much as it had not even proceeded to consider the petitioner's case and was cursorily rejected after recording that it would be considered after giving the opposite parties an opportunity.

In view of this, the Court noted that petitioners have made out a prima facie case for due consideration of ad interim injunction, to the effect that till such time as the claim of respondents is established in the Court of competent jurisdiction, the “opposite parties should be restrained from publishing of such allegations in social, print or electronic media.

“The denial of ad interim injunction in the facts of the present case would defeat the very purpose of filing the suit, in case the opposite parties were allowed to proceed to further canvass their claim/allegations against the husband of the petitioner in the public domain which may have the effect of damaging the matrimonial reputation of the petitioner and her family .There is no doubt that a person who is alleged to have a child born outside of marriage is not considered virtuous and society attaches stigma to such relationships,” the Court further added.

Consequently, the Court remitted the matter to the Court below, i.e., the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow, to pass fresh orders on the petitioner's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and also consider passing an interim injunction within one week of the application's pendency.

The Court directed that until the Court below decides on the petitioner's application, the defendants are restrained from publishing any new matter regarding the relationship of defendant nos. 1 and 2 with the petitioner's husband in any manner whatsoever.

However, the Court clarified that the protection granted to the petitioner by the HC's order would be available only until suitable orders are passed by the Court below on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

“In case the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is not decided within the time prescribed above due to any legal impediment, then it shall be open for the Court below to consider granting a temporary interim injunction, in accordance with the law,” the Court added.