Delhi District Court
Anil Babbar vs Upasna Kapoor And Ors on 18 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY,
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-COMMERCIAL
CASES JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CNR No.: DLSW030021722018
Suit No. CS SCJ 2066/2018
In the matter of :
Anil Babbar
S/o Sh. Kewal Krishan Babbar,
R/o Plot No. 1, 1st Floor,
Bhagwati Garden, Piller no. 777,
Dwarka Mor, Metro Station,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059. .....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Upasna Kapoor
W/o Sh. Anil Babbar,
D/o Sh. Kashmiri Lal Kapoor.
2. Deepak Kapoor,
S/o Sh. Kashmiri Lal Kapoor,
Both R/o 11/240,
Digitally
signed by
SWAYAM
Geeta Colony, SWAYAM SIDDHA
SIDDHA TRIPATHY
Delhi-110031.
TRIPATHY Date:
2024.12.18
16:24:24
+0530
CS SCJ 2066/2018
Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.
Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 1 of 33
3. Jyoti Puri,
W/o Sh. Sumit Puri,
D/o Sh. Kashmiri Lal Kapoor,
R/o L-1/193-A & 194-B,
LIG DDA Flats, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019. .....Defendants
Date of Institution of suit : 26.11.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 18.12.2024
****
SUIT FOR DAMAGES OF RS. 1,00,000/- (RUPEES
ONE LAKH ONLY).
****
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith pendente lite interest @ 24% p.a. and cost.
PLAINT
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was married to defendant no. 1 as per Hindu rites and customs on 01.02.2014 and a baby girl named "Samriddhi Babbar"
was born on 24.10.2015, out of the wedlock. The whole family celebrated the Choula Ceremony of their daughter at their house on 05.11.2015. However, the relationship of SWAYAM plaintiff and defendant no. 1 was not cordial and the SIDDHA TRIPATHY defendant no. 1 left the matrimonial house. She threatened Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA the plaintiff on 27.03.2016 that she will cut her veins and TRIPATHY Date: 2024.12.18 16:24:47 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 2 of 33
implicate the plaintiff and his family members in false cases and will not come back to the matrimonial home till the matrimonial home was sold out and separate flat is purchased out of its proceeds. She also beat up the plaintiff on 14.05.2016 and used criminal force against the mother of the plaintiff, pushed her, pulled her hair and slapped her. On several occasions, she snatched away her daughter from the hands/lap of the plaintiff and his family members.
3. That on 07.06.2016, the defendant no. 2 threatened the plaintiff at the instance of defendant no. 1 over phone. Defendant no. 3 also used to interfere in the family life of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 1 with her minor daughter left the matrimonial home on her own on 10.06.2016 with her mother and sister at the instance of defendant no. 2 and 3.
4. That defendants and their family members entered into criminal conspiracy with common malafide intention and changed the identity of plaintiff's daughter on facebook from 30.06.2016. Defendant no. 1 kept looking for suggestions for a female name starting from 'S' and 'D' and among the suggestions 'Saanvi' was picked up. The defendants and their family members changed the name of plaintiff's daughter from 'Samriddhi Babbar' to 'Saanvi Kapoor', without information and permission of the plaintiff.
5. The plaintiff further asserts that the defendants, in a bid to Digitally signed by damage his reputation and mental well-being, posted SWAYAM SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY defamatory content on Facebook, casting aspersions on his TRIPATHY Date:
2024.12.18 16:24:56 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 3 of 33
character and attempting to sever his relationship with his daughter. These actions, according to the plaintiff, have caused significant reputational harm, emotional distress, and mental anguish, for which he seeks damages of Rs. 1,00,000/-, alongside interest and costs.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
6. After service of summons, the defendants appeared before the court and filed their WS. They have refuted the claims of the plaintiff, denying any malicious intent or defamatory actions. They have stated that the allegations are exaggerated and fabricated by the plaintiff, who, as a lawyer, has filed this suit to apply undue pressure on defendant no. 1 and evade his responsibilities towards her and their minor daughter. The defendants maintain that the social media posts in question were personal expressions, not defamatory statements, and argue that the plaintiff has failed to establish any tangible reputational harm. They contend that the suit is an abuse of the legal process and seek its dismissal with costs.
REPLICATION
7. Replication was filed to the written statement filed by the defendants wherein, the plaintiff denied all the averments made by the defendants and reiterated the claim made in the plaint. SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.12.18 16:25:11 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 4 of 33
ISSUES
8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for trial on 08.11.2021:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of damages with interest as prayed for? OPP (2) Whether the defendant has not posted/uttered any defamatory statement against the plaintiff? OPD (3) Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
9. Plaintiff, in support of his case, has placed on record his affidavit in evidence vide Ex. PW1/1 and relied upon the following documents:
Sl. No Exhibits/Mark Details of Documents
1. Ex. PW-1/2 Copy of birth certificate of (OSR) minor daughter namely, Samriddhi Babbar.
2. Ex. PW-1/3 Certificate u/s 65 of the Indian Evidence Act dated 24.11.2018
3. Ex. PW-1/4 Coloured prints out of (colly.) Facebook post.
4. Ex. PW-1/5 Copy of PCR forms (OSR) (colly.)
5. Ex. PW-1/6 Copy of complaint dated Digitally (OSR). 25.08.2017 signed by SWAYAM SWAYAM SIDDHA
6. Ex. PW-1/7 Copy of complaint dated SIDDHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date:
2024.12.18 16:25:24 CS SCJ 2066/2018 +0530 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 5 of 33
18.04.2017 (OSR).
7. Ex. PW-1/8 Copy of FIR no. 193/2018 (OSR). PS Geeta Colony.
8. Ex. PW-1/9 Copy of FIR no. 221/2018 (OSR) PS Geeta Colony.
9. Ex. PW-1/10 Copy of certified order of (OSR) bail orders dated 18.08.2018 passed by Ld. ASJ, East, Karkardooma Court.
10. Ex. PW-1/11 Coloured photographs of (colly. four pages) minor daughter.
11 Ex. PW-1/12 Certificate u/s 65 of the Indian Evidence Act dated 04.04.2019.
12 Ex. PW-1/13 Copy of emails dated 22.12.2014.
13. Ex. PW-1/14 Coloured prints of marriage (colly.) (page no. photographs of defendant 26 to 37) no. 2.
14. Ex. PW-1/15 Coloured photograph of minor daughter posted by defendant no. 1.
10. On 15.01.2024, during cross-examination, the PW-1 con-
SWAYAM firmed that defendant no. 1 is his wife and defendants no. 2 SIDDHA TRIPATHY and 3 are his brother-in-law and sister-in-law, respectively. Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY He acknowledged that matrimonial disputes have been on- Date: 2024.12.18 16:25:35 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.
Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 6 of 33going between him and his wife since 2017, prior to the filing of this suit, and confirmed that there are approxi- mately 18-20 cases/complaints between them, some pend- ing and some disposed of. PW-1 also admitted to being the opposing counsel in cases involving defendant no. 3 at Saket Courts, although he claimed ignorance of specific details regarding these cases, noting that they pertain to matrimonial disputes between defendant no. 3 (Jyoti Puri) and her husband, Sh. Sumeet Puri.
11. When questioned about whether he had tendered a written apology before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a con- tempt petition filed by defendant no. 1 in a maintenance case, PW-1 confirmed this, stating that the case pertained to the maintenance of his minor daughter, and he had cleared all arrears prior to offering the apology. PW-1 fur- ther admitted that two criminal charge sheets ( Ex. PW-1/8 and Ex. PW-1/9) were filed against him. He also acknowl- edged that PW-2, his brother-in-law (husband of defendant no. 3), had filed an affidavit of evidence, which is part of the court record. PW-1 confirmed that PW-3, who is his colleague from Delhi University, is also appearing with him in some litigations pending at Karkardooma Courts.
12. On 17.02.2024, PW-1 further admitted that he had not filed any police complaints concerning the attempted sui- cide by defendant no. 1 during her stay at his home. He also confirmed that no legal notice regarding the present Digitally signed by SWAYAM case of damages had been sent. PW-1 stated that he pos- SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date:
2024.12.18 sesses a copy of the chargesheet filed against him in case 16:25:43 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 7 of 33
FIR no. 221/2018, PS Geeta Colony, under Section 66 of the IT Act, although he has not yet received the complete chargesheet. When asked whether he could produce the chargesheet related to FIR No. 221/2018, PW-1 responded that it was not relevant to the present case.
13. PW-1 was then asked if the police had concluded in their investigation that he had accessed the Facebook ID of de- fendant no. 1 (his wife) from both Dwarka Court and his residence in Uttam Nagar. PW-1 replied that the police/ prosecution had filed a false and fabricated chargesheet against him and that he had not yet received all the docu- ments of the chargesheet, nor had charges been framed. PW-1 confirmed that his daughter's name is Samriddhi Babbar, which is a matter of record. He acknowledged that the Facebook posts, already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/4 (colly., running from pages 39 to 75) , were seen by him using his own Facebook ID. PW-1 admitted that he had filed a divorce case against defendant no. 1, partly on grounds of cruelty, and that the same Facebook posts ( Ex. PW-1/4) were also submitted in that case, which is still pending before the court of Sh. Anil Kumar, Ld. Judge Family Court, South West, Dwarka.
14. At this point, PW-1 was shown a judgment dated 21.08.2021, passed by the court of Ms. Richa Gusain Solanki, Ld. ASCJ-JSCC-Guardian Judge, South West, Dwarka, in CS SCJ 2061/2018, titled Anil Babbar v.
SWAYAM Upasana Kapoor. PW-1 was asked what he knew about the SIDDHA TRIPATHY judgement, to which he responded that the matter had Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.12.18 16:25:55 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.
Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 8 of 33already been decided by the Hon'ble Court as per the order dated 04.05.2023 and 17.08.2023, following an application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. PW-1 denied the suggestion that the alleged defamatory post (Ex. PW-1/4) insulted or contained defamatory remarks against him. He further denied that the posts were ad- dressed to him and that he was deposing falsely.
15. Plaintiff also examined Sh. Sumeet Puri as PW2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex.PW2/1 relied upon the following documents:
S.No. Exhibits/Mark Details of
documents
1. Ex. PW-2/2 (Colly). 12 coloured
photographs in three
pages.
2. Ex. PW-2/3 Certificate u/s 65-B
of the Indian
Evidence Act.
16. In his cross-examination recorded on 17.02.2024, he admitted that plaintiff in this case is his counsel in his matrimonial disputes against his wife, Smt. Jyoti Puri/ defendant no. 3 herein. He also confirmed that he had cited the plaintiff as a witness in his matrimonial cases, including his divorce proceedings. However, PW-2 denied the suggestion that his testimony in this case was part of a quid pro quo, i.e., giving an advantage or favor in exchange for something. PW-2 acknowledged that his children, Dhruv and Vihaan Puri, are currently living with SWAYAM SIDDHA him, and confirmed that his wife, defendant no. 3, has filed TRIPATHY Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.12.18 16:26:05 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.
Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 9 of 33a guardianship petition before the Saket Family Court. He further clarified, he is their biological father and guardian. Regarding Ex. PW-1/4 (colly.), PW-2 stated that he had seen the alleged Facebook posts in 2016-2017 via his own Facebook account. However, he did not contact the plaintiff at that time, as he was not in touch with him. PW- 2 also confirmed that none of his relatives or friends had contacted him about the alleged defamatory posts. He added voluntarily that all of these posts Ex. PW-1/4 (colly.) were planned in front of me by the defendants. PW-2 denied the suggestions made by the counsel for the defendants that he was providing false testimony under the plaintiff's instructions or that he had agreed to testify in this case to take revenge against the defendants. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
17. Plaintiff also examined Sh. Sanjay Kumar as PW-3 and Sh.
Krishan Kumar as PW-4 who tendered their evidence by way of affidavits vide Ex. PW-3/1 and Ex. PW-4/1 respectively which are also in line with the plaint.
18. In his cross-examination recorded on 16.03.2024, PW3 acknowledged that he is also engaged as a counsel in several matrimonial cases between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. He further explained that the Facebook posts, which he had mentioned in his affidavit, came to his knowledge through Facebook, as he and the plaintiff were common friends at the relevant point in time. He clarified that, since the plaintiff was his Facebook friend at the time, Digitally those posts appeared in his Facebook feed. However, he signed by SWAYAM SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date:
2024.12.18 16:26:14 CS SCJ 2066/2018 +0530 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 10 of 33
could not confirm whether the plaintiff had been tagged in those posts. PW-3 also noted that while he had seen the notifications in his Facebook account, he had not filed or placed on record any screenshots or documents displaying the alleged posts. Additionally, PW-3 admitted that no document had been submitted to show whether he and the plaintiff were connected as friends on Facebook at the time of the alleged posts.
19. PW-3 acknowledged his awareness of the Bar Council of India Rules, which state that, as he represents the plaintiff in many cases, his testimony could be considered inadmissible. However, he emphasized that he was not testifying as the plaintiff's counsel in the present case but rather as a friend. When questioned further, PW-3 denied the suggestion that the plaintiff was using this case to establish grounds for divorce. He could not specify the exact number of cases filed by the plaintiff against defendant no. 1 but estimated that around 10 to 12 cases were ongoing. PW-3 also stated that the plaintiff is currently earning around Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month. He clarified that the plaintiff is deeply engrossed in his personal litigations, which has affected his ability to earn more. He concluded by denying the suggestion that his testimony was false, maintaining that his deposition was truthful and based on personal knowledge.
20. On 16.03.2024, during cross-examination, PW-4 stated that he works as a Senior Technical Assistant in the Digitally signed by Ministry of Corporate Affairs. He confirmed that he has SWAYAM SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date:
2024.12.18 16:26:24 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 11 of 33
known the plaintiff since 2011, as both of them completed their LLB from Law Centre-1, Delhi University. He further stated that he personally drafted his evidence affidavit Ex. PW-4/1 and had got it attested from Rohini Courts, Delhi. PW-4 clarified that he did not prepare the affidavit of PW- 3, Sh. Sanjay Kumar. He denied the suggestion that he had prepared the affidavit Ex. PW-4/1 under the plaintiff's instructions or signed it without reading the contents.
21. PW-4 further testified that, since he was a Facebook friend of the plaintiff at the relevant time, the Facebook posts mentioned in his affidavit appeared in his feed. However, he was unsure whether the plaintiff had been tagged in those posts. He added that he had seen the notifications in his Facebook account. PW-4 acknowledged that he had not filed or placed on record any screenshots or documents showing the alleged Facebook posts on his account, nor had he submitted evidence to confirm his Facebook friendship with the plaintiff at the relevant time. Regarding the plaintiff's earnings, PW-4 stated that the plaintiff is earning approximately Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month. He clarified that the plaintiff's involvement in personal litigation has impacted his ability to earn more. PW-4 denied the suggestion that this case is being used by the plaintiff to establish grounds for divorce. He also stated that he was unaware of the exact number of cases filed by the plaintiff against defendant no. 1. Finally, PW-4 denied SWAYAM SIDDHA the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the behest of TRIPATHY Digitally signed by the plaintiff.
SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.12.18 16:26:36 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.
Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 12 of 3322. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was closed on 16.03.2024.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
23. Defendant no. 1 examined herself as DW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. DW-1/B and relied upon the following documents:
S.No. Exhibit/Mark Details of documents
1. Ex. DW-1/1 Copy of the order dated 21.08.2021 passed by the Court of Ms. Richa Gusain Solanki, the then Ld. JSCC/ASCJ/GJ, South West District, Dwarka.
2. Ex. DW-1/A Certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in respect of electronic record i.e. order dated 21.08.2021.
24. DW-1 was cross-examined by Counsel for plaintiff. On 18.04.2024, during Cross-examination, DW1 testified that defendant no. 2 is her brother, and defendant no. 3 is her sister. She resides with her brother Sh. Deepak Kapoor and her mother, while her sister lives separately in Kalkaji. She added, her husband is the reason behind the separation of her sister and her husband. She confirmed that the plaintiff, Sh. Anil Babbar, is her husband. She has filed two FIRs against him, and her brother has filed one NCR. Besides these, there are two other cases under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and one under the Domestic Violence Act, all filed against SWAYAM SIDDHA her husband. TRIPATHY Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.12.18 16:26:47 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.
Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 13 of 3325. DW1 stated that she holds an MBA degree and has mentioned this in all relevant documents. She further testified that she stayed in her matrimonial home from 02.02.2014 to 10.06.2016 but filed no complaints during that time. She explained, that the plaintiff did not allow her to go out anywhere except to her office and did not let her contact anyone. After being removed from her matrimonial home, DW1 first gave an intimation cum complaint to the police in April 2017, and later filed FIR No. 193/2018, which was unrelated to the initial complaint.
26. DW1 was asked if she remembered whether she had joined Facebook on 18.09.2015, or if Deepak Kapoor was her Facebook friend at that time. She responded that she could not recall. She also did not remember commenting on defendant no. 2's Facebook post on 19.07.2016. Regarding her daughter's name, DW1 stated that her daughter's name is "Samriddhi" and added, "Plaintiff's father only got the name 'Samriddhi' registered in the birth certificate, but later the plaintiff added the 'Babbar' surname.
27. DW1 confirmed that she recognized her daughter in the Facebook posts from Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly.) and acknowledged that her family affectionately calls her daughter "Saanvi." However, she stated that she had no recollection of certain posts and content from Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly.), attributing her lack of memory to the emotional distress caused by her removal from her matrimonial home. When shown certain Facebook posts uploaded by SWAYAM SIDDHA defendant no. 2, DW1 recognized the pictures of herself TRIPATHY Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.12.18 16:26:58 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.
Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 14 of 33and her daughter, but she could not recall being tagged in some of them. She also admitted that her daughter's pictures from the mundan ceremony were posted on Facebook by defendant no. 2. DW1 affirmed that she has custody of her daughter, Samriddhi Babbar, and has been receiving maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month since February 2019. A legal notice dated 07.10.2021, Ex. PW- 1/X (Colly.), and the reply from defendant no. 1 dated 12.10.2021 were shown to DW1, who admitted the contents of both the notice and the reply. DW1 was also shown a copy of a judgment from the Dwarka Sessions Court, Ex. PW-1/Y (Colly.), and confirmed her awareness of the judgment.
28. DW1 denied suggestions that her elder sister, Meenu Bhola, had any pending matrimonial case and stated, she is well settled and living happily with her family. She also denied that the wife of defendant no. 2 lives separately and only visits occasionally. She further denied any intent to defame the plaintiff through Facebook posts, stating, they did not address the plaintiff in her Facebook post. When asked about changing her daughter's name to "Saanvi,"
DW1 responded that it is wrong to suggest that she changed her name to alienate the plaintiff from his daughter. Finally, DW1 denied all suggestions of giving false testimony, affirming that she was testifying truthfully.
29. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of the defendants was SWAYAM closed on 18.04.2024. SIDDHA TRIPATHY Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.12.18 16:27:06 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.
Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 15 of 33FINAL ARGUMENTS
30. I have heard both the parties who argued as per their pleadings and the arguments are not being reproduced for the sake of brevity.
DECISION AND REASONING THEREOF
31. The issue-wise findings are as under:
Issue no. 1:
32. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
33. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no. 1 committed various physical and mental cruelty upon the plaintiff and his family members till the time she resided at the matrimonial house. Thereafter, the defendants in collusion with each other posted defamatory comments on facebook and also unlawfully changed the name of their daughter. They also filed a false and fabricated complaint against the plaintiff on 24.08.2017.
34. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has relied upon the documents as detailed earlier. Firstly, it is alleged that the name of his daughter has been changed from Samriddhi Babbar to Saanvi Kapoor, without his permission and information. He has placed reliance upon the facebook posts dated 30.06.2016 where the defendant no. 2 through his facebook post asked for suggestions of name for a baby girl with 'S' and 'D'. He has also relied upon the facebook posts of defendant no. 2 dated 26.08.2016, 28.08.2016, 29.08.2016, 08.09.2016, 25.09.2016, 24.10.2016, Digitally signed by SWAYAM 22.08.2017, 18.06.2017, 17.08.2017. SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date:
2024.12.18 16:27:14 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 16 of 33
35. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant no. 2 not only sought suggestions for change of name of daughter of the plaintiff on facebook but also subsequently kept referring to her as Saanvi Kapoor. The change of name of the daughter was also supported by defendant no. 1 and 3 in their comments to the post.
36. The plaintiff has also relied upon the birth certificate of his daughter dated 24.10.2015 Ex. PW-1/2, where her name is mentioned as 'Samriddhi Babbar'. It has been contended that the change of name of the child has resulted in the loss of reputation of the plaintiff by disconnecting his daughter's identity from that of the plaintiff and his family members.
37. Per contra, it is contended by the defendants that the posts do not directly reference the plaintiff or his family and were aimed at reconciliation and not defamation. Without specific references or direct imputations against the plaintiff, the claim of defamation fails. The official name of the child remains Samriddhi Babbar in all legal documents, and Saanvi is merely a term of affection used by the defendants.
38. With the submissions of both parties before the Court, now the matter requires careful adjudication on the key issues raised, including whether the Facebook posts and other actions by the defendants constitute defamation, whether the plaintiff has suffered reputational damage or SWAYAM emotional harm warranting damages, and the overall SIDDHA TRIPATHY veracity of the claims presented by both parties. The Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.12.18 16:27:23 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 17 of 33
principles of defamation law under Indian jurisprudence is required to be applied while weighing the evidence presented to the court for arriving at a just decision.
39. In civil suits for defamation under Indian law, the plaintiff must establish the following elements to succeed in a claim:
a. False Statement: The statement must be false and communi- cated by the defendant.
b. Published to a Third Party: The defamatory statement must be communicated to a third party, causing reputational harm to the plaintiff.
c. Defamatory Nature: The statement must lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. d. Lack of Privilege: The defendant should not be protected by any form of privilege (e.g., absolute or qualified privilege). e. No Consent: The plaintiff did not consent to the publication of the statement.
40. The law distinguishes between libel (written defamation) and slander (spoken defamation), with libel being actionable per se (without the need to prove special damage). In cases of libel on social media, courts must assess whether the posts were capable of injuring the plaintiff's reputation and whether such injury actually occurred.
41. The plaintiff claims that several Facebook posts made by the defendants caused reputational harm and inflicted men- tal agony. He has presented Facebook posts, as exhibited in Ex. PW-1/4. The defendants deny that the Facebook posts were defamatory, asserting that they were expres-
SWAYAM sions of personal views shared within the family and social SIDDHA TRIPATHY circle, not with the intention of defaming the plaintiff. The Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.12.18 16:27:30 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.
Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 18 of 33following is a detailed analysis and the corresponding find- ings regarding each of the alleged defamatory remarks and Facebook posts submitted by the plaintiff:
42. Post dated 18.09.2015 by Defendant No. 2:
"Shame on those who don't respect the feelings and emo- tions of their wife... making a hundred commitments before mar- riage is easy but different to follow them after marriage.... I want to ask those educated people, why don't your hitler's law is not appli- cable on your own daughters? Missing my sister Upasna Kapoor."
43. This post implied that the plaintiff did not respect or care for his wife, Defendant No. 1, and was neglecting his mari- tal duties. The post does not directly name the plaintiff but can be inferred to be a criticism of his behavior within the marriage. However, defamation requires that the statement harms the plaintiff's public reputation. This post, while critical, is more of a personal grievance about family dy- namics and does not explicitly damage the plaintiff's pro- fessional or public standing.
44. Post dated 14.06.2016 by Defendant No. 2:
"What's the use of becoming a doctor, lawyer or something else, if you can't buy happiness for your family, your wife n child? Such people are high in attitude and low in relations."
45. The plaintiff contends that this post mocks his profession and implies he is neglecting his family responsibilities. The post indirectly references the plaintiff's profession as a lawyer and suggests shortcomings in his personal duties. Although the statement may be hurtful, it does not satisfy the legal criteria for defamation, as it primarily reflects a personal opinion and lacks any explicit imputation of crim- SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.12.18 CS SCJ 2066/2018 16:27:40 +0530 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.
Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 19 of 33inal or immoral behavior that would harm the plaintiff's public or professional reputation.
46. Post dated 25.06.2016 by Defendant No. 2:
"Hey guys, any idea how to download birth certificate (oct 2015) online?"
47. The plaintiff claims that this post was a precursor to tam-
pering with the official records related to his daughter's identity. The post does not directly name the plaintiff or his daughter but suggests an interest in obtaining a birth certificate. While the plaintiff fears this could lead to tam- pering, there is no clear defamatory content or actionable harm in this post, as it does not impute falsehoods about the plaintiff.
48. Post dated 27.06.2016 by Defendant No. 2:
"Single mothers can do better than being is false relationship"
49. This post cannot be considered defamatory because it is a general opinion about single mothers and their relation- ships, rather than a specific false statement about any indi- vidual. Defamation requires a statement that falsely harms the reputation of a person by imputing a particular fact. This post does not target the plaintiff specifically and lacks an assertion of factual information that would damage his reputation. It is more of a subjective viewpoint or criti- cism, which does not meet the legal threshold for defama- tion.
50. Post dated 27.06.2016 by Defendant no.2:
Digitally signed by "Anyone for assistance in New passport for new born baby?" SWAYAM SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date:
2024.12.18 16:27:50 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 20 of 33
51. The plaintiff viewed this post as part of a scheme to create confusion about his daughter's identity. Like the earlier post, this one also does not contain direct defamatory statements against the plaintiff. It merely inquires about the process of issuance of a new passport of a new born, which is not inherently defamatory or damaging to the plaintiff's reputation.
52. Post dated 30.06.2016 by Defendant No. 2:
"Hey guys, any suggestion for baby girl's name ?? Alphabet is 'S' and 'D'. Thanks."
53. The plaintiff argues that this post led to the informal re-
naming of his daughter from "Samriddhi Babbar" to "Saanvi Kapoor," without his consent. The act of suggest- ing a name for a child is not, by itself, defamatory. How- ever, the plaintiff's concern stems from the defendants us- ing a different name for his daughter. While this might have caused personal hurt, it does not amount to defama- tion, as there is no public harm or damage to the plaintiff's reputation caused by this post.
54. Post dated 12.07.2016 by Defendant No. 2:
"Heights of Doubt...."
55. The plaintiff interpreted this post as insinuating that he did not care for Defendant No. 1 or provide for her needs. The post is vague and does not contain any direct or explicit reference to the plaintiff. The lack of clarity and specificity makes it difficult to view this as defamatory content.
Digitally signed by SWAYAM SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date:
2024.12.18 16:27:58 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 21 of 33
56. Post dated 20.07.2016 by Defendant No. 2:
"So it's proved...I am a role model for someone:) I had posted my photograph yesterday... message delivered to followers...today, they have changed their photograph in the same pose...come on guys, be a human being instead of monkey:) dosto, galat to nahi bola na??"
Defendant no. 3 commented, "Bilkul Nahi."
57. The plaintiff claims this post mocked him after he posted a photograph from the Supreme Court of India. While this post may have been a personal jab, it lacks the necessary elements of defamation, such as imputing a false fact about the plaintiff that could harm his reputation. It is more of a taunt than a defamatory statement. This post also lacks di- rect or indirect reference to the plaintiff in any manner.
58. Post dated 26.08.2016 by Defendant No. 2:
A picture of the plaintiff's daughter with the name "Saanvi" dur- ing Krishna Janmashtami, with the caption: "Upasna Kapoor, noth- ing else is better than being a proud mother of such a cute baby... this time will never come back in your life...enjoy the moments! You're among a few fortunate people who present them as mom, dad and everything to their children."
59. The plaintiff claims this post insinuated that Defendant No. 1 was both the mother and father of the child, excluding the plaintiff from his daughter's life. This post suggests that Defendant No. 1 was taking on both parental roles, but it does not contain an explicit defamatory statement against the plaintiff. While the post may have caused emo- tional distress, it does not amount to defamation.
60. Posts dated 26.08.2016, 29.08.2016 and 08.09.2016 by De-
fendant No. 2: SWAYAM SIDDHA Photographs during the Ganpati Festival where the child was TRIPATHY referred to as "Saanvi." Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.12.18 16:28:06 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors. Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 22 of 33
61. The plaintiff claims that these posts were intended to erase his connection to his daughter by using the name "Saanvi" instead of her legal name, "Samriddhi Babbar." The infor- mal use of a different name on social media does not amount to defamation, as the child's legal name remains unchanged, and no tangible harm to the plaintiff's reputa- tion has been demonstrated.
62. Post dated 24.09.2016 by Defendant No. 2:
"If men can't respect his wife and children... wife has freedom to kick his ass and move on... no one can write your destiny except god. So choose wisely, freedom or slavery?"
Defendant No. 3 commented: "First of he is not a man who gives no respect 2 his wife... in today's world, a woman is very much aware of her rights, so kick these husbands who r so handi- capped and cant bear d responsibility of his wife and children."
63. The plaintiff claims that this post and the comment sug-
gested that he was neglecting his duties as a husband and father, and it further attacked his masculinity and sense of responsibility. The post does not directly name the plaintiff and is a subjective opinion about marital relations and does not rise to the level of defamation, as it does not accuse the plaintiff of any illegal or immoral conduct that would harm his public or professional reputation.
64. Post dated 25.09.2016 by Defendant No. 2:
"Our daughter... saanvi kapoor :) she is so funny and cute... learning alphabet... m for mama and p for pajama... I asked her many times... p for papa and she always calls pajama ;) fortunately, she considers me her father and play in my laps... lucky me :)"
65. The plaintiff alleged that this post falsely implied that De-
fendant No. 2 was acting as the father figure for his daugh- Digitally signed by SWAYAM SWAYAM SIDDHA ter, which caused him significant emotional distress. Even SIDDHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date:
2024.12.18 16:28:16 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 23 of 33
considering that it might be disrespectful to a biological fa- ther, however, it neither directly insults or defames the plaintiff nor in any manner harms the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of the public. Instead, it reflects a personal per- spective on the relationship between Defendant No. 2 and the child.
66. Post dated 25.09.2016 by Defendant No. 2:
"Please note down time, date and length of my messages. Take a print out and show to everyone and do burn your blood;) nothing bothers me... World is too big and I need to concentrate on produc- tive things... Happy burning!"
67. This post is a personal remark expressing indifference to others' reactions, without targeting anyone specifically. The language used, including references to 'burning blood' and 'happy burning,' is more of an emotional expression rather than a factual assertion. Furthermore, the post does not harm the plaintiff's reputation or affect his standing in the community. It remains within the realm of subjective opinion and personal sentiment, not defamation.
68. Post dated 11.10.2016 by Defendant No. 2:
"Dusshera celebration with my little niece and sis... little princess is enjoying the best time of her life with naanu, nani, and mama...we are feeling so proud to have her with us...value of a cute children can be estimated by a fortunate mother...god bless my little saanvi kapoor."
69. The plaintiff claimed that this post was another attempt to replace him as his daughter's father and publicly endorse the new identity they had created for her. This post primar- ily highlights the joy of celebrating a festival with the child Digitally signed by SWAYAM and family, without any direct imputation against the SWAYAM SIDDHA SIDDHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date:
2024.12.18 16:28:24 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 24 of 33
plaintiff. While the use of the name "Saanvi" may be up- setting to the plaintiff, the post itself is not defamatory, as it does not accuse the plaintiff of any wrongful or harmful conduct that would damage his public standing.
70. Post dated 24.10.2016 by Defendant No. 2:
"Baby Kapoor is celebrating her 1st birthday with nana, nani, and their family. Such a wonderful moment, a time that would never come again. Special thanks to brave mother...we do celebrate the moments like a carnival, and others just look at the photograph, save it, print it, file it, and pretend to smile in the pain... god bless them with 200gms of brain ;)"
71. The plaintiff found this post highly insulting, implying that he was merely a spectator in his daughter's life, discon- nected from the celebrations. The post does not directly mention the plaintiff but seems to contrast the celebration of the child's birthday with the indifference or detachment of others. While this may have hurt the plaintiff on a per- sonal level, it does not contain any defamatory statements that would legally damage his reputation. The language used is more sarcastic than defamatory.
72. Post dated 22.08.2017 by Defendant No. 2:
"My dearest brother-in-law (ANIL BABBAR / प्यार से वकील बाबु ), I am so thankful for your wishes and please convey my re- gards to your parents, brother, and sister Sarika. Trust me; your wishes are bringing me good luck (I got another salary increment) and my face is illuminating with success. It's all because of your wishes.
I am feeling embarrassed that I couldn't invite you and your BABBAR parivaar on this occasion. But believe me, you were in my heart, hence keeping शादी की मिलनी का कम्बल for you. But I am SWAYAM sad that you didn't miss me as I missed you. In fact, you didn't once SIDDHA TRIPATHY call me, your wife, or YOUR CUTE DAUGHTER SAANVI. Unfor- Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA tunately, you were not around when Saanvi started calling Papa, and TRIPATHY Date: 2024.12.18 16:29:20 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 25 of 33
she considered me as her godfather. I celebrated her 1st birthday at Hotel Leela Palace, and she calls me "Papa" sometimes; it was amazing. Sadly, Saanvi didn't receive any gift from her GRAND- PARENTS AND FATHER. But, I kept your place very well and gave her an expensive doll from your side. I want to ask you, as a brother-in-law (not an enemy). She is the only and first children in your family; don't you understand the importance of this? Neverthe- less, I see my own daughter in your daughter Saanvi. She learnt walking, dancing, singing, smiling, jumping, and so many funny things in front of my eyes, and it all makes me so lucky. Her gig- gling is best stress reliever for me. I don't go to temple, but touch her feet every morning, and it has been bringing me lot of luck every day (got a promotion recently). SEE... how fortunate I am.
Is the rejection of a newborn baby GIRL and her mother ac- ceptable in your family? What is the use of your education if it does not support your feelings toward a little cute baby? Don't take me otherwise, but will you allow me and my wife to adopt Saanvi with your permission? We're financially strong and capable enough to take care of her education in the best institutions in the world.
Everybody is making fun of your post and asking me if you're a lawyer? I respect you and your family, so kindly, don't close all doors so quickly, or you might regret it later. But if you wish, then all my family is standing with me and Upasna, and we're ready to go till last end. Thanks Madhu Dawar, Ritu Nagpal, Ashok Arora, Ashok Bose, Mansi Ahuja, Amit Kumar... Regards, Deepak Kapoor. This is my own decision, and I am happy with it."
73. The plaintiff found this post highly offensive, as it sarcasti-
cally thanked him for not being present in his daughter's life and implied that Defendant No. 2 had taken over his role as the father. This post is personal and filled with sar- casm, but it does not contain any explicit defamatory state- ments about the plaintiff. While it may cause emotional distress to the plaintiff, it does not meet the legal standard for defamation, as it does not accuse the plaintiff of any false or harmful conduct that would damage his public rep- SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY utation.
Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.12.18 16:29:29 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.
Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 26 of 3374. Post dated 18.07.2016 by Defendant No. 3:
"पानी की टं की पर चढ़ कर मरने की धमकी दे ते गाय के पति सांड, इनका कहना है की जब गों रक्षा #गिरोह वाले गाय को माँ मानते है तो मु झे पिता क्यों नहीं मानते ."
75. The plaintiff found this post to be highly insulting, as it mocked him in a degrading and vulgar manner. However, while the post is distasteful, the plaintiff must prove that this post caused reputational damage to him. It appears to be more of a personal attack, and though hurtful, it does not reach the threshold of defamation unless the plaintiff can show that it harmed his standing in the eyes of third parties.
76. Post dated 24.10.2016 by Defendant No. 1:
"Jo insaan apne bache ka nahi ho saka woh kabhi kissi ka nahi ho sakta, Am I right or wrong? Aise insaan ka kya karna chahiye, Please tell."
77. This post, according to the plaintiff, implied that he was an unfit father and husband, and it was followed by comments from their friends supporting this view. Although it is a personal grievance, it does not contain any factual false- hoods that would rise to the level of legal defamation. The comments from friends, while hurtful, are opinions that do not constitute actionable defamation. Moreover, no direct reference has been made to the plaintiff thereby causing loss of reputation.
78. Comments made by defendant no.1 & 2 on post dated 18.06.2017: SWAYAM SIDDHA Defendant no.2 commented: "Saanvi is celebrating Happy God- TRIPATHY father's Day today :) But she didn't wish me yet ;)" Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.12.18 16:29:39 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.
Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 27 of 33Defendant No. 1 commented: "I'm her mother and father. I'm very happy with her. God Bless her."
79. The plaintiff claimed that this post falsely implied that De-
fendant No. 2 was acting as the father figure in his daugh- ter's life, excluding the plaintiff from his rightful parental role. This post suggests that Defendant No. 2 has a close relationship with the child, but it does not explicitly claim that he has taken over the role of the father. The comment from Defendant No. 1, where she states that she is both mother and father, reflects her personal view and frustra- tion but does not meet the threshold of defamation, as it does not make any false or defamatory claims against the plaintiff.
80. Post dated 17.08.2017 by Defendant No. 1:
"Saanvi, our chhoti Radha Rani, celebrated her second Shri Krishna Janamashtami & Independence Day at Nanu & Nani's house. Very happy, dancing & enjoying. God Bless her."
81. The plaintiff claimed this post was another instance where his daughter's name was publicly changed to "Saanvi" to sever her connection with him. The use of the name "Saanvi" on social media, while upsetting to the plaintiff, does not constitute defamation, as it does not imply any false or damaging statements about the plaintiff. There is no public harm caused to the plaintiff's reputation by this post.
82. Apart from the above-mentioned posts, the screenshots of posts dated 23.07.2016 and 25.10.2016 have not been filed SWAYAM SIDDHA by the plaintiff and hence cannot be considered. No other TRIPATHY Digitally signed by facebook posts including the ones where photographs have SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.12.18 16:29:46 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.
Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 28 of 33been uploaded have any caption on the basis of which defamation can be alleged by the plaintiff.
83. Moreover, the plaintiff can also not claim defamation on the basis of FIRs registered against him, including FIRs Ex. PW1/8 and Ex. PW1/9. For a claim of defamation to arise, these allegations must first be proven false in a court of law. The mere existence or registration of an FIR does not constitute defamation unless the court conclusively de- clares the allegations to be false. Defendant No. 1, as a cit- izen, has the right to file complaints, and until such allega- tions are judicially determined to be false, such actions cannot be considered defamatory in any manner.
84. The plaintiff has undoubtedly experienced emotional dis-
tress due to the Facebook posts, as they reference personal and familial matters involving his daughter. However, most of the posts reflect personal grievances, opinions, or sarcasm and are far away from meeting the legal definition of defamation. To establish defamation under Indian law, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the statements were false, malicious, and caused reputational harm in the eyes of third parties.
85. Many of the posts consist of sarcastic remarks or emo-
tional venting, which do not rise to the level of legally ac- tionable defamatory statements. Defamation in a civil con- text requires proof that the statements are false and were Digitally signed by SWAYAM SWAYAM SIDDHA made with the intent to harm the plaintiff's reputation, SIDDHA TRIPATHY TRIPATHY Date:
2024.12.18 such that it would lower his esteem in the eyes of the pub- 16:29:55 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 29 of 33
lic or cause financial or professional damage. The Face- book posts in question do not meet these legal criteria.
86. While the plaintiff feels personally attacked, there is no ev-
idence that these posts have caused tangible harm to his professional or public reputation. Plaintiff witnesses viz., PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4 have not provided concrete evi- dence that the plaintiff's reputation within his professional community or among peers has been diminished as a result of the Facebook posts. The posts, while hurtful on a per- sonal level, largely reflect familial discord and personal frustration, rather than public defamation that could impact the plaintiff's standing as an advocate or in society at large. Apart from bare averments, the witnesses have also failed to establish that the facebook posts of the defendants were visible to them. the witnesses could not tell whether the plaintiff was tagged in the posts. Evidently, the plain- tiff was not tagged or named in almost all the posts except one. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the post of a friend of a friend would appear on their feed, thereby making their testimonies indirect. The remaining testimonies of the wit- nesses also appear to be hearsay as it pertains to the inci- dents occurred within the family.
87. The informal use of "Saanvi" instead of "Samriddhi Bab-
bar" was a source of distress for the plaintiff, as he felt it was a deliberate attempt to alienate him from his daughter. However, the name of the child was not legally changed SWAYAM SIDDHA nor proof of it was produced before the Court. The name TRIPATHY Digitally signed by "Saanvi" was used colloquially within the family on social SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.12.18 16:30:15 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.
Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 30 of 33media as admitted by DW1. Defendant no.1 also con- firmed that the legal name of the child has not been changed, thereby giving a rest to all the apprehensions of the plaintiff. Even, use of a different name on social media does not rise to the level of defamation, as the use of the name has not been shown to cause any reputational harm or professional detriment to the plaintiff. The same issue has already been discussed by the Court of Ld. ASCJ, South-west, Delhi in its judgement dated 21.08.2021 Ex. DW2/1.
88. In India, defamation is actionable in civil suits when the statements are false, published, and defamatory. The bur- den of proof lies on the plaintiff to demonstrate that these statements caused reputational damage. Indian courts have consistently held that merely offensive or hurtful state- ments do not amount to defamation unless they result in lowering the plaintiff's reputation in society as held in Ram Jethmalani v. Subramanian Swamy, 126 (2006) DLT
535. Emotional distress caused by hurtful remarks does not amount to defamation unless the plaintiff can prove that the statements were untrue and that they had a detrimental effect on his reputation. The judgments relied upon by the plaintiff in his written submission also do not offer much help to his case as he has failed to prove the alleged facts.
89. In conclusion, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the Digitally signed by Facebook posts were defamatory in the legal sense. There SWAYAM SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date:
is insufficient evidence that the posts were false statements 2024.12.18 16:30:25 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 31 of 33
that caused reputational harm. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages or interest.
90. This issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Issue no. 2:
91. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. The defendants have denied that their posts were defamatory. The defence available to the defendant in a suit for defamation are Fair Comment, Truth and Lack of Malice.
92. The defendants' Facebook posts, while personal and at times distressing, do not fulfil the legal criteria for defama- tion under Indian law. These posts predominantly consti- tute emotional expressions or opinions arising from famil- ial disputes, rather than false or malicious assertions in- tended to harm the plaintiff's reputation. The plaintiff has failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish any tangible harm to his professional or social standing. Notably, witnesses have not testified to any diminution of the plaintiff's reputation in society or as an advocate as a consequence of these posts. Moreover, the defendants' statements are likely protected under the established defenses of fair comment, truth, and lack of malice, as they reflect subjective opinions rather than deliberate and false imputations designed to injure the plaintiff's reputation.
93. In light of these factors, the court finds that the plaintiff has not proven that the defendants posted or uttered defam- SWAYAM SIDDHA atory statements in the legal sense. Therefore, it cannot be TRIPATHY Digitally signed by SWAYAM SIDDHA TRIPATHY Date: 2024.12.18 16:30:33 +0530 CS SCJ 2066/2018 Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.
Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 32 of 33said that the defendants have posted or uttered any defama- tory statement against the plaintiff.
94. This issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
RELIEF
95. In view of the findings given under issue no. 1 to 2, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
96. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
SWAYAM
SIDDHA
TRIPATHY
Digitally signed by
SWAYAM SIDDHA
TRIPATHY
Announced in the open court (Swayam Siddha Tripathy) Date: 2024.12.18
16:30:44 +0530
on 18.12.2024 ACJ-CCJ-ARC,
South West District,
Dwarka Court, Delhi
CS SCJ 2066/2018
Anil Babbar v. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.
Judgment dated 18.12.2024 Page 33 of 33