Delhi District Court
Anil Babbar vs Upasna Kapoor on 26 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI M JAIN: DISTRICT JUDGE-05,
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ/3/2025
DLSW010003502025
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Anil Babbar
S/o Sh. Kewal Krishan Babbar,
C/o Sh. C.L. Babbar,
R/o M-37, 2nd Floor, Gali No. 5,
New Mahavir Nagar, New Delhi-110018.
Also at:
Chamber No. 706, Dwarka Court Complex,
Sector 10, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075.
.............APPELLANT
Versus
1. Upasna Kapoor
D/o Late Sh. Kashmiri Lal Kapoor,
R/o 11/240, Geeta Colony,
Delhi-110031.
2. Deepak Kapoor
S/o Late Sh. Kashmiri Lal Kapoor,
R/o 11/240, Geeta Colony,
Delhi-110031.
RCA No. 3/25 Anil Babbar V. Upasna Kapoor & Ors. Pg. no. 1 of 21
SHILPI Digitally signed
by SHILPI M JAIN
M JAIN Date: 2025.12.26
16:28:39 +0530
3. Jyoti Puri
S/o Late Sh. Kashmiri Lal Kapoor,
R/o 5/2, Kalkaji Extension,
Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019
...............RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 16.01.2025
Arguments concluded on : 18.11.2025
Date of decision : 26.12.2025
INDEX
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ...................3
ISSUES BEFORE TRIAL COURT ...................5
TRIAL COURT ORDER .......................5
SUBMISSIONS OF THE ..................9
PARTIES
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ..................11
Post-by-Post Re- ..................18
appreciation:
CONCLUSION ..................19
ORDER
1. Being aggrieved vide order dated 18.12.2024 passed by Ld. ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, South West District, Dwarka RCA No. 3/25 Anil Babbar V. Upasna Kapoor & Ors. Pg. no. 2 of 21 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2025.12.26 16:28:44 +0530 Courts in CS SCJ No. 2066/2018 whereby the suit for damages of Rs.1,00,000/- as filed on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant was decreed, present appeal preferred (hereinafter referred as 'impugned order'). In said suit, Plaintiff/appellant sought following reliefs:
a) Pass a decree of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages along with pendente lite interest @ 24 % per annum along with cost of the suit.
b) Pass such other order/direction as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Facts which are imperative to be considered are succinctly recapitulated as follows: it is the case of the plaintiff that he was married to defendant no. 1 according to Hindu Rites and Customs on 01.02.2014, and a baby girl named "Samriddhi Babbar" was born out of the wedlock on 24.10.2015. The entire family celebrated the Choula Ceremony of their daughter at their residence on 05.11.2015. However, the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 was not cordial, and the defendant no. 1 left the matrimonial home. On 27.03.2016, she threatened the plaintiff that she would cut her veins and falsely implicate the plaintiff and his family members in various cases and stated that she would not return to the matrimonial home until the matrimonial house was sold and a separate flat was purchased from its proceeds. Further, on 14.05.2016, she assaulted the plaintiff and used criminal force against the plaintiff's mother by pushing her, pulling her hair, and slapping her. On multiple occasions, the defendant no. 1 forcibly snatched her daughter RCA No. 3/25 Anil Babbar V. Upasna Kapoor & Ors. Pg. no. 3 of 21 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2025.12.26 16:28:50 +0530 from the plaintiff and his family members. On 07.06.2016, defendant no. 2 threatened the plaintiff over the phone at the behest of defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 3 also interfered in the family life of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. At the instance of defendants no. 2 and 3, defendant no. 1 left the matrimonial home along with her minor daughter, mother, and sister on 10.06.2016.
3. It is further submitted that the defendants, in criminal conspiracy with malicious intent, changed the identity of the plaintiff's daughter on Facebook starting from 30.06.2016. Defendant no. 1 sought suggestions for a female name beginning with 'S' and 'D', and among the suggestions, "Saanvi" was chosen. Consequently, the defendants and their family members changed the child's name from "Samriddhi Babbar" to "Saanvi Kapoor" without the plaintiff's knowledge or permission. The plaintiff also asserts that in an attempt to harm his reputation and mental peace, the defendants posted defamatory content on Facebook, casting aspersions on his character and attempting to estrange his relationship with his daughter. These acts have caused significant damage to the plaintiff's reputation, emotional distress, and mental anguish, for which he claims damages amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-, along with interest and costs.
4. As per the trial court record, defendants/respondents filed WS. In WS, the contention of defendants/respondents are threefold. Defendants have refuted the plaintiff's claims, denying any malicious intent or defamatory actions. They stated that the allegations are exaggerated and fabricated by the plaintiff, who, RCA No. 3/25 Anil Babbar V. Upasna Kapoor & Ors. Pg. no. 4 of 21 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2025.12.26 16:28:54 +0530 as a lawyer, has filed this suit to apply undue pressure on Defendant No. 1 and evade his responsibilities toward 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. Defendants contend that the suit is an abuse of the legal process and seek its dismissal with costs.
5. 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.
ISSUES BEFORE LD. TRIAL COURT
6. Vide order dt. 08.11.2021, following issues were framed by Ld. Trial Court:
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of damages with interest, as prayed for? OPP. ii. Whether the defendants not not posted/uttered any defamatory statement against the plaintiff? OPP. iii. Relief.
LD. TRIAL COURT ORDER
7. Upon appreciating the material on record, Ld. Trial Court dismissed the suit instituted by plaintiff/appellant. Relevant paras of judgment is reproduced herein below:
RCA No. 3/25 Anil Babbar V. Upasna Kapoor & Ors. Pg. no. 5 of 21 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2025.12.26 16:28:58 +0530 "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 by the plaintiff and hence cannot be considered. No other Facebook posts including the ones where photographs have been 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 declares the allegations to be false. Defendant No. 1, as a citizen, has the right to file complaints, and until such allegations are judicially determined to be false, such actions cannot be considered defamatory in any manner.
84. The plaintiff has undoubtedly experienced emotional distress 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 emotional venting, which do not rise to the level of legally actionable defamatory statements. Defamation in a civil context requires proof that the statements are false and were made with the intent to harm the plaintiff's reputation, such that it would lower his esteem in the eyes of the public or cause financial or RCA No. 3/25 Anil Babbar V. Upasna Kapoor & Ors. Pg. no. 6 of 21 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN 16:29:02 +0530 Date: 2025.12.26 professional damage. The Facebook posts in question do not meet these legal criteria.
86. While the plaintiff feels personally attacked, there is no evidence 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 evidence 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 personal 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 witnesses also appear to be hearsay as it pertains to the incidents 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 nor proof of it was produced before the Court. The name "Saanvi" was used colloquially within the family on social media as admitted by DW1. Defendant no.1 also confirmed 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 L.d. ASCJ, South-west, Delhi in its judgement dated 21.08.2021 Ex. DW2/1.
RCA No. 3/25 Anil Babbar V. Upasna Kapoor & Ors. Pg. no. 7 of 21 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2025.12.26 16:29:05 +0530
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 statements 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 Facebook posts were defamatory in the legal sense. There is insufficient evidence that the posts were false statements 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 fulfill the legal criteria for defamation under Indian law. These posts predominantly constitute emotional expressions or opinions arising from familial disputes, rather than false or malicious assertions intended 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' RCA No. 3/25 Anil Babbar V. Upasna Kapoor & Ors. Pg. no. 8 of 21 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2025.12.26 16:29:09 +0530 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 defamatory statements in the legal sense. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendants have posted or uttered any defamatory statement against the plaintiff.
94. This issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants."
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
8. Ld. Counsel for appellant submits that, the impugned order dated 18-12-2024 passed by Ld. ACJ-CCJ-ARC Ms. Swayam Siddha Tripathy in CS SCJ 2066/2018 ("Anil Babbar Vs. Upasana Kapoor & Ors.") is legally untenable, passed without judicial mind, and violates natural justice principles by ignoring record facts, plaintiff submissions, and evidence including cross-examinations of PW-1 to PW-4 and DW-1 proving defamatory Facebook posts (Ex.PW-1/4). The Trial Court arbitrarily dismissed the suit despite defendants failure to file affidavits or evidence, unrecorded non-appearance of R-2/Deepak Kapoor and R-3/Jyoti Puri, and respondents' unclean hands. It overlooked plaintiff's written arguments, admissions in cross-examinations, and judicial precedents from Hon'ble Delhi High Court and others, disrespecting higher court directives. The order casually disregarded oral evidence, treated plaintiff as defence counsel, and introduced unpleaded views without proof, causing mental and bodily injury to appellant. No RCA No. 3/25 Anil Babbar V. Upasna Kapoor & Ors. Pg. no. 9 of 21 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2025.12.26 16:29:13 +0530 findings addressed cited judgments filed on 20.08.2024 or Hon'ble Apex Court rulings against disrespecting other Hon'ble High Courts' decisions. Appellant further requested to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order, call Trial Court record, and grant other just reliefs as balance of convenience favors appellant with no alternate remedy. This bona-fide petition prevents irreparable loss in justice's interest.
9. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondents respectfully submits that the appeal filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 18-12-2024 passed by Ld. ACJ-CCJ-ARC Ms. Swayam Siddha Tripathy in CS SCJ 2066/2018 is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit, and deserves dismissal. The impugned order is a well-reasoned judicial decision reflecting proper application of law and appreciation of facts on record. The claim that it was passed without judicial mind and disregarded evidence is unfounded. The appellant's allegations of violation of natural justice principles and ignoring plaintiff's submissions are baseless. The Trial Court duly considered all oral and documentary evidence, including cross-examinations of PW- 1 to PW-4 and DW-1. The contention that defendants failed to file affidavits or evidence is incorrect as evidence was duly adduced by the respondents. The non-appearance of R-2/Deepak Kapoor and R-3/Jyoti Puri was either condoned or irrelevant to the disposal. Plaintiff's written arguments and admissions in cross-examination were meticulously examined by the Ld. Trial Court. Moreover, judicial precedents cited by the appellant were either distinguishable on facts or law or otherwise correctly interpreted by the Ld. Trial Court. The claim that the Ld. Trial RCA No. 3/25 Anil Babbar V. Upasna Kapoor & Ors. Pg. no. 10 of 21 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2025.12.26 16:29:17 +0530 Court introduced unpleaded views or treated appellant as defense counsel lacks any material basis and appears to be an attempt to mislead this Hon'ble Court. Allegations relating to mental and bodily injury caused to appellant are extraneous and do not warrant interference with the order passed on merits. The appellant's plea for balancing the convenience and preventing irreparable loss is misplaced since alternate remedies are available and no imminent prejudice is shown. The appellant has failed to point out any jurisdictional error or manifest illegality in the impugned order demanding appellate intervention. In view of the foregoing, it is humbly prayed that the appeal be dismissed with costs and the impugned order be upheld in the interest of justice.
ANALYSIS AND FINDING:
10. As the present appeal revolves around the defamation, it is imperative to first examine and analyse the concept of defamation and defamatory statements, essential ingredients to constitute this offence under Section 356 of BNS and certain judicial precedents highlighting the role of courts while adjudicating for offence of defamation.
11. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 28, "the term 'defamatory statement' has been defined as "a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of the society generally or to cause him to be shunned or avoided or to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to RCA No. 3/25 Anil Babbar V. Upasna Kapoor & Ors. Pg. no. 11 of 21 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN 16:29:20 Date: 2025.12.26 +0530 convey an imputation on him disparaging or injurious to him in his office, profession, calling trade or business".
12. The Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed ., explains the meaning of "defamation" as "the taking from one's reputation.
The offense of injuring a person's character, fame, or reputation by false and malicious statements".
As per Oxford dictionary:
"A public statement about individuals, products, groups, or organizations which is untrue and may cause them harm. Termed libel if in written form and slander if spoken."
As per Cambridge dictionary:
"the action of damaging the reputation of a person or group by saying or writing bad things about them that are not true."
13. Thus, Defamation, in law, the act of communicating to a third party false statements about a person that result in damage to that person's reputation. Libel and slander are the legal subcategories of defamation. Generally speaking, libel is defamation in written words, pictures, or any other visual symbols in a print or electronic medium. Slander is spoken defamation.
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pandey Surendra Nath Sinha v. Bageshwari Pd. AIR 1961 Pat 164 observed as under:
RCA No. 3/25 Anil Babbar V. Upasna Kapoor & Ors. Pg. no. 12 of 21 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2025.12.26 16:29:24 +0530 "14. A defamatory statement is one which has a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it refers; which tends, that is to say, to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally and in particular to cause him to be shunned or avoided or regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike or disesteem, or to convey an imputation on him disparaging or injurious to him in his office, profession, calling, trade or business. Defamation, therefore, is the wrong done by a person to another's reputation by words, signs, or visible representations.
15. A wrong of defamation, as such, consists in the publication of a false and defamatory statement concerning another person without lawful justification.
16. The word 'defamation' is the generic name for the wrong; libel and slander are particular forms of it. Defamation, therefore, is of two kinds, namely, libel and slander. In libel the defamatory statement is made in some permanent and visible form in writing or otherwise recorded, such as, printing, typing, pictures, photographs, caricatures, effigies. In slander the defamatory statement or representation is expressed by speech or its equivalents, that is, in some other transitory form, whether visible or audible, such as, a nod, wink, smile, hissing, the finger-language of the deaf and dumb, gestures or inarticulate but significant sounds.
17. The actions of libel and slander are thus private legal remedies, the object of which is to make reparation for the private injury done by wrongful publication to a third person or persons of defamatory statements concerning the plaintiff. The defendant in these actions may prove the truth of the defamatory matter and thus show that the plaintiff has received no injury. For though there may be damage accruing from the publication, yet, if the facts RCA No. 3/25 Anil Babbar V. Upasna Kapoor & Ors. Pg. no. 13 of 21 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2025.12.26 16:29:29 +0530 published are true, the law gives no remedy by action.
18. In an action for libel the plaintiff should prove that the statement complained of (1) refers to him; (2) is in writing, (3) is defamatory, and, (4) was published by the defendant to a third person or persons."
15. In case of Jeffrey J. Diermeier v. State of W.B. (2010) 6 SCC the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that to constitute defamation under Section 499 of IPC, the following ingredients must be fulfilled:
"29. To constitute "defamation" under Section 499 IPC, there must be an imputation and such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made. In essence, the offence of defamation is the harm caused to the reputation of a person. It would be sufficient to show that the accused intended or knew or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the complainant, irrespective of whether the complainant actually suffered directly or indirectly from the imputation alleged."
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221 , while analysing the constitutionality of offence of defamation, had also enumerated the essentials of Section 499 of IPC, which are as under:
"168. For the aforesaid purpose, it is imperative to analyse in detail what constitutes the offence of "defamation" as provided under Section 499 RCA No. 3/25 Anil Babbar V. Upasna Kapoor & Ors. Pg. no. 14 of 21 Digitally signed SHILPI byJAINSHILPI M M JAIN Date: 2025.12.26 16:29:35 +0530 IPC. To constitute the offence, there has to be imputation and it must have been made in the manner as provided in the provision with the intention of causing harm or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made. Causing harm to the reputation of a person is the basis on which the offence is founded and mens rea is a condition precedent to constitute the said offence. The complainant has to show that the accused had intended or known or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the complainant. The criminal offence emphasises on the intention or harm. Section 44 IPC defines "injury". It denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any per- son, in body, mind, reputation or property. Thus, the word "injury" encapsulates harm caused to the reputation of any person. It also takes into account the harm caused to a person's body and mind. Section 499 provides for harm caused to the reputation of a person, that is, the complainant."
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Google India Private Limited v. Visakha Industries and Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 162 had also examined the ingredients of Section 499 as well as the meaning of terms "making of an imputation" and "publishing of an imputation". The relevant observations in this regard are reproduced hereunder:
"105. Under the said provision, the Law Giver has made the making or publishing of any imputation with a requisite intention or knowledge or reason to believe, as provided therein, that the imputation will harm the reputation of any person, the essential ingredients of the offence of defamation. What is the meaning to be attached to the words "making of an imputation" and "publishing of an imputation"? This question has been set out with RCA No. 3/25 Anil Babbar V. Upasna Kapoor & Ors. Pg. no. 15 of 21 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.12.26 M JAIN 16:29:38 +0530 clarity in a recent judgment which is reported in Mohd. Abdulla Khan v. Prakash K. (2018) 1 SCC
615. It was held as follows:
10. An analysis of the above reveals that to constitute an offence of defamation it requires a person to make some imputation concerning any other person;
(i)Such imputation must be made either
(a)With intention, or
(b) Knowledge,or
(c) Having a reason to believe that such an imputation will harm the reputation of the person against whom the imputation is made.
(ii)Imputation could be, by
(a)Words, either spoken or written, or
(b) By making signs, or
(c)Visible representations
(iii)Imputation could be either made or published.
The difference between making of an imputation and publishing the same is:
If 'X' tells 'Y' that 'Y' is a criminal -- 'X' makes an imputation.
If 'X' tells 'Z' that 'Y' is a criminal -- 'X' publishes the imputation.
The essence of publication in the context of Section 499 is the communication of defamatory imputation to persons other than the persons against whom the imputation is made."
18. Thus, plaintiff/appellant must prove (i) a defamatory statement (false imputation lowering reputation in eyes of right- thinking persons), (ii) publication to third parties, (iii) reference to the plaintiff, and (iv) resultant damage (in libel, general damages presumed but quantum depends on proof). Mere vulgar abuse or hurtful remarks do not suffice.
RCA No. 3/25 Anil Babbar V. Upasna Kapoor & Ors. Pg. no. 16 of 21 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2025.12.26 16:29:42 +0530
19. In its judgment, Ld. Trial Court conducted a thorough post-by-post analysis of approximately 20 Facebook entries, most authored by the brother-in-law. It was found that the posts were predominantly sarcastic, opinion-based, or reflective of personal grievances arising from the marital breakdown. While acknowledging that some content was hurtful and indirectly critical (e.g., implying neglect or mocking absent parental roles), Ld. Trial Court held that they rarely named the plaintiff directly and did not contain false factual assertions capable of lowering his reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.
20. Ld. Trial Court emphasized that civil defamation requires proof of a false statement published to third parties that tangibly harms reputation, beyond mere emotional distress. No evidence was found of professional or societal damage to the plaintiff, and witnesses' testimonies were deemed indirect or hearsay, lacking proof of widespread visibility (e.g., no confirmation of tagging). The informal use of "Saanvi Kapoor"
was ruled colloquial and affectionate, with the child's legal name remaining unchanged, as admitted by the wife.
21. Thus, applying established legal principles, Ld. Trial Court concluded that the posts were protected as fair comment in a private dispute, without proven malice or actionable harm. Both issues were decided against the plaintiff, and the suit was dismissed.
RCA No. 3/25 Anil Babbar V. Upasna Kapoor & Ors. Pg. no. 17 of 21 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2025.12.26 16:29:46 +0530 Post-by-Post Re-appreciation:
22. This Court has independently examined Ex. PW-1/4 (colly.) printouts and is of the opinion that, Ld. Trial Court's analysis is impeccable for following reasons:
a) Posts criticising marital neglect or professional attitude (e.g., 18.09.2015, 14.06.2016) are general opinions without direct naming or verifiable false facts.
b) Birthday/ festival posts using "Saanvi" or implying single-parent role are celebratory with underlying sarcasm, but reflect personal frustration, not malicious falsehoods.
c) The single post directly addressing the appellant (22.08.2017) is heavily sarcastic but does not impute criminality, immorality, or professional incompetence warranting reputational lowering.
23. In considered opinion of this Court while innuendo is actionable if extrinsic facts make indirect statements, here the extrinsic facts (marital separation) render the posts understandable as private grievances, not defamatory imputations. No evidence that third parties interpreted them as lowering the appellant's esteem beyond sympathy for family discord.
24. The appellant, an advocate, led no evidence of professional loss, client withdrawal, or social ostracism. Witnesses (PW-2 to PW-4) admitted seeing posts via feeds but provided no independent corroboration of harm or direct RCA No. 3/25 Anil Babbar V. Upasna Kapoor & Ors. Pg. no. 18 of 21 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.12.26 M JAIN 16:29:49 +0530 visibility. Their testimony appears influenced by proximity to the appellant. Emotional distress alone, without societal lowering, is insufficient.
25. Further DW-1 admitted "Saanvi" is affectionate; legal name unchanged. No actionable alienation via social media nickname. For the purpose of clarification, relevant testimony of DW1 is reproduced hereinbelow :
"I do not remember if on 18.09.2015, I had joined Facebook or not. I do not remember that Deepak Kapoor was my facebook friend on 18.09.2015. In page no. 46 which is Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly.), I do not recall if I commented on 19.07.2016 on the facebook post of defendant no. 2/Sh. Deepak Kapoor. My daughter's name is only Samriddhi (Voln. In birth certificate plaintiff's father got only Samriddhi name registered however later on the plaintiff got Babbar surname added after my daughter's name in Birth Certificate). I have received copy of the plaint with all annexures and I have perused it. I have got to know about birth certificate from the copy of the plaint. Ex. PW-1/2 is birth certificate of Samriddhi Babbar. Pandit had given alphabet 'S' and 'D' to name daughter Samriddhi Babbar. My family had attended the ceremony. I do not recall about in page no. 43 and 47 Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly.) (Voln. As I was disturbed because I was removed from my matrimonial home). In page no. 48 Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly.), 1 am present in the picture uploaded by defendant no. 2 on his facebook post dated 21.08.2016. I do not recall if I was tagged by defendant no. 2. in page no. 49 Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly.), I recognized that the defendant no. 2 has uploaded picture of my daughter Samriddhi Babbar. We with affection call my daughter as RCA No. 3/25 Anil Babbar V. Upasna Kapoor & Ors. Pg. no. 19 of 21 Digitally signed SHILPI byJAINSHILPI M M JAIN Date: 2025.12.26 16:29:53 +0530 Saanvi. From page no. 50 to 52 Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly.), I am present in the picture uploaded by defendant no. 2 on his facebok posts. In page no. 54 Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly.), I recognized my daughter in the facebook post however I do not know about the content shared with the picture. In page no. 56 Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly.), I recognized my daughter, myself and my brother/defendant no. 2 in the facebook post dated 11.10.2016. From page no. 57 to 60 Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly.), I recognized all pictures in the facebook post shared by defendant no. 2. From page no. 61 to 62 Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly.), I know Ms. Mansi Ahuja, she is my relative. I got to know about content of page no. 61 and 62 posted in facebook posts in my name through this suit. I have not uploaded the content available in post on page no. 61 dated 22.08.2017 (Voln. I will not refer my husband as my brother in law as indicated in the post). I am not able to recall if facebook contents on page no. 63 Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly.) is uploaded by me or not. In page no. 64 Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly.), I am not able to recall the picture. In page no. 65 and 66 Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly.), pictures posted through my account are my daughter pictures. In Ex. PW-1/2, I identified these pictures as it was clicked during mudan ceremony (at yamuna ganpati viserjan ghat) of my daughter Samriddhi Babbaar. I have custody of my daughter Samriddhi Babbar. I am receiving maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month for my daughter since February 2019. At this stage, a legal notice dated 07.10.2021 Ex. PW-1/X (Colly.) sent to defendant no. I and reply from defendant no. 1 sent to plaintiff dated 12.10.2021 shown to the defendant no. 1, I admit contents of notice as well as reply dated 07.10.2021 and 12.10.2021 respectively."
(emphasis is mine) RCA No. 3/25 Anil Babbar V. Upasna Kapoor & Ors. Pg. no. 20 of 21 SHILPI Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN M JAIN Date: 2025.12.26 16:29:57 +0530 CONCLUSION
26. The impugned judgment and decree dated 18.12.2024 are based on detailed and proper appreciation of evidence, law, and facts. There is no merit in the appeal raised by plaintiff/appellant seeking to overturn the dismissal. The impugned judgment reflects a cautious approach, maintaining a high threshold for defamation claims in acrimonious family matters on social media to balance freedom of expression with reputational protection.
27. Ergo, in view of above discussion and well settled preposition of law, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court as the scope of civil cases are circumscribed by the limitations, pleadings and nature of relief claimed. Hence, present appeal stands dismissed.
28. TCR be send back with the copy of this Order.
29. No order as to cost. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedAnnounced in open court SHILPI by SHILPI M JAIN on 26.12.2025 M JAIN Date: 2025.12.26 16:30:02 +0530 (SHILPI M JAIN) District Judge-05, South West District Dwarka Courts, New Delhi RCA No. 3/25 Anil Babbar V. Upasna Kapoor & Ors. Pg. no. 21 of 21