Anil Babbar vs Upasana Kapoor & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 4 May, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 30 July, 2026
+ RSA 90/2026, CM APPL. 29562/2026, CM
APPL.29563/2026, CM APPL.29564/2026
ANIL BABBAR
S/o Sh. Kewal Krishan Babbar
R/o M-37 2ND Floor, Gali No. 5,
New Mahavir Nagar,
New Delhi. .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Bhanita Patowary, Advocate.
versus
1. UPASANA KAPOOR (WIFE)
W/o Sh. Anil Babbar
D/o Late Sh. Kashmiri Lal Kapoor
R/o 11/240, Geeta Colony,
Delhi-110031. .....Respondent No.1
2. DEEPAK KAPOOR (BROHER-IN-LAW)
S/o Late Sh. Kashmiri Lal Kapoor
R/o 11/240,
Geeta Colony,
Delhi-110031. ...Respondent No. 2
3. JYOTI PURI (SISTER-IN-LAW)
W/o Sh. Sumit Puri
D/o Sh. Kashmiri Lal Kapoor
R/o 11/240,
Geeta Colony,
Delhi-110031. ....Respondent No.3
Through: Appearance not given
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 1 of 22
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as
the “CPC”) , has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff/Appellant against the
Judgment and Decree dated 26.12.2025, whereby the learned District Judge-
05, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, has upheld the
dismissal of the Suit for recovery of damages of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of
the alleged defamatory statements and Facebook posts made and published
by the Defendants/Respondents.
2. The Plaintiff/Appellant had filed a Civil Suit bearing CS SCJ No.
2066/2018 seeking recovery of damages of Rs.1,00,000/- along with the
pendente lite interest @ 24% p.a., on account of reputational harm,
emotional distress, mental anguish.
3. The facts, in brief, are that the Plaintiff/Appellant, Anil Babbar, got
married to the Defendant No. 1, Smt. Upasana Kapoor, according to the
Hindu Customs and Rites on 01.12.2014. They were blessed with one
daughter, Samriddhi Babbar on 24.10.2015 out of the wedlock. Since
10.06.2016, the child is in the exclusive custody of the Defendant No. 1.
4. The Plaintiff/Appellant asserted that soon after the marriage, there
was matrimonial discord between the parties. Defendant No. 1 frequently
quarrelled with him over trivial matters, shouted at him, abused and
threatened him, and his family members. It was further alleged that she
made disparaging remarks against the Plaintiff/Appellant and his parents;
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 2 of 22
did not participate in household responsibilities and failed to accord due
respect to the elders of the family.
5. Defendant No. 1 repeatedly pressurised him to sell the matrimonial
home and purchase a separate property in her name, and also compelled him
to claim his share in the family property. She also assaulted the Plaintiff on
14.05.2016 and even threatened to commit suicide by cutting her veins on
27.03.2016. Eventually, owing to the matrimonial discord, Defendant No. 1
left the matrimonial home along with the minor child, on 10.06.2016,
purportedly stating that she would return within 15–20 days; however, she
continued to reside at her parental home, thereafter.
6. The principal grievance of the Plaintiff/Appellant was that Defendant
No. 2, Mr. Deepak Kapoor, and Defendant No. 3, Ms. Jyoti Puri, who are
the brother and sister respectively, of Defendant No. 1, Ms. Upasna Kapoor,
along with their other family members, entered into a conspiracy with a
common mala fide intention to change and conceal the identity of the
Plaintiff‟s daughter. In furtherance thereof, Defendant No. 2 sought
suggestions on Facebook for the name of a female child beginning with the
letters “S” and “D”.
7. Several suggestions were received in response to the said Facebook
post, from which the name “Saanvi” was selected. The Plaintiff/Appellant
claimed that the Defendants thereafter, changed the name and surname of
his daughter from “Samriddhi Babbar” to “Saanvi Kapoor”, without his
knowledge or consent.
8. It was further asserted that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and their family
members, made a series of indirect comments and posts on Facebook,
against the Plaintiff. Though the posts did not expressly name the Plaintiff,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 3 of 22
they were understood by his neighbours, friends and relatives to be directed
against him. These Facebook posts caused immense mental anguish and
emotional distress to the Plaintiff and lowered his reputation, as well as that
of his parents, in the estimation of persons known to them. Through these
Facebook posts, the acquaintances of the Plaintiff also came to know that
Defendant No. 1 was no longer residing with him and that the name of the
minor daughter had been changed.
9. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 and her family members were in the
habit of making indirect comments, against the Plaintiff and his family
members on Facebook. The photographs of the minor daughter were
uploaded on several occasions, including Janmashtami, Ganesh Utsav and
her birthday celebrations, describing her as "Saanvi Kapoor", thereby
portraying her as having no connection with the Plaintiff or his family.
10. On several occasions, the Plaintiff requested Defendant No. 1 and her
family members not to change the name of the minor daughter, since her
Birth Certificate had been issued in the name of "Samriddhi Babbar", which
was within the knowledge of Defendant No. 1. On 24.10.2016, on the
occasion of the first birthday of the minor daughter, the Plaintiff was not
permitted to give her clothes, toys and other articles.
11. The Defendant No. 1 became ruthless, emotionless and stone-hearted,
had been poisoning the mind of the minor daughter against the Plaintiff and
his family members. On several occasions, the Plaintiff and his family
members visited the residence of Defendant No. 1 to meet the minor child,
but were not permitted to do so.
12. The Mundan ceremony of the minor daughter was performed without
any intimation to the Plaintiff, who came to know of it through Facebook
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 4 of 22
posts. When the Plaintiff confronted Defendant No. 1, she threatened that
she would not return to the matrimonial home unless the Plaintiff sold the
matrimonial house and purchased an independent flat in her name. The
Plaintiff tolerated such acts, conduct and behaviour of Defendant No. 1 in
the hope that with the passage of time, good sense would prevail, but all
such hopes proved to be in vain.
13. Thereafter, Defendant No. 1 made a Complaint dated 25.08.2017 to
the SHO, Police Station Geeta Colony, pursuant to which the Plaintiff and
his family members were summoned by the Police. She also made a
Complaint dated 18.04.2017 before the Special Police for Women and
Children, Kirti Nagar, which was forwarded to CAW Cell, Patparganj and
the Mediation Centre, Family Welfare Committee, Karkardooma Courts .
14. The Plaintiff maintained that he was always willing to bring
Defendant No. 1 back to the matrimonial home, but she refused to return.
Subsequently, FIR No. 292/2018 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian
Penal Code was registered, on 18.06.2018. The Plaintiff alleged that
Defendant No. 1 in connivance with Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and the other
family members, was attempting to falsely implicate him.
15. Aggrieved by the aforesaid acts of the Defendants, particularly the
alleged defamatory Facebook posts, the Plaintiff instituted the present Suit
seeking recovery of damages of Rs.1,00,000/- along with pendente lite
interest @ 24% per annum on account of loss of reputation, physical and
mental torture and agony.
16. The Defendants, in their joint Written Statement , raised preliminary
objections that the Suit was an abuse of the process of law and did not
disclose any cause of action.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 5 of 22
17. On merits , the marriage between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1
and the birth of their daughter were admitted, while the remaining averments
were denied. The Defendant No. 1 states that she had, in fact, been harassed
by the Plaintiff and his family members; thus, compelling her to leave the
matrimonial home.
18. It was further averred that none of the Facebook posts relied upon by
the Plaintiff, were defamatory or capable of causing any loss to his
reputation. Insofar as, change of the name of the minor daughter, it was
explained that she was affectionately called “Saanvi Kapoor”; however, her
official name continued to remain “Samriddhi Babbar”.
19. All the contents of the Plaint, were denied and it was stated that the
Suit of the Plaintiff, be dismissed.
20. The Plaintiff in the Replication, reiterated his assertions as made in
the Plaint and denied all the allegations made in the Written Statement.
21. From the pleading of the parties, the Issues were framed on
08.11.2021, which are as under:
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
recovery of damages with interest, as prayed for?
OPP
ii. Whether the defendants not posted/uttered any
defamatory statement against the plaintiff? OPP
iii. Relief.
22. The Plaintiff in support of its case, examined himself as PW-1 and
proved the various Facebook Posts and also the copy of the FIR registered
against him, which are Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/15.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 6 of 22
23. PW-2 , Mr. Sumeet Puri, husband of the sister of the Defendant No.
1, in his testimony, proved the coloured photographs of the daughter,
Ex.PW-2/2 along with the Certificate under Section 65 B as Ex.PW-2/3.
24. PW-3 , Mr. Sanjay Kumar and PW-4 , Mr. Krishan Kumar,
tendered their evidence by way of Affidavits, Ex.PW-3/1 and Ex.PW-4/1
respectively, wherein they supported the averments in the Plaint.
25. In response, the Defendants examined DW-1 Ms. Upasna Kapoor,
(Defendant No. 1) , who tendered her evidence by way of Affidavit, Ex.
DW-1/B, and deposed on the lines of the defence taken in the Written
Statement.
26. The learned Civil Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence, held that
none of the Facebook posts constituted defamation or caused reputational
harm to the Plaintiff. Each post was considered separately and was found
incapable of being construed as defamatory. It was also observed that the
mere filing of an FIR or complaint, would not constitute defamation, unless
the allegations contained therein were conclusively found to be false. Every
person has the right to lodge a Complaint and until the allegations are
disproved, the exercise of such right cannot be termed defamatory.
27. Though some of the Facebook posts may have caused emotional
distress to the Plaintiff, as they pertained to personal and familial matters
involving his daughter, they largely reflected personal grievances, opinions
or sarcasm and did not satisfy the essential ingredients of defamation. The
Plaintiff also failed to prove that the statements were false, were made with
the intention of harming his reputation, or had lowered his estimation in the
eyes of the public or caused any professional or reputational loss.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 7 of 22
28. It was further held that although the Defendants may have
affectionately addressed the minor daughter as “Saanvi”, her legal name
continued to be “Samriddhi Babbar”, and merely calling her by an
affectionate name, could not amount to reputational harm. Consequently,
none of the Facebook posts fulfilled the legal requirements of defamation
and consequently, the Suit was dismissed.
29. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Plaintiff preferred RCA Civil
DJ ADJ/3/2025. The learned District Judge reappreciated the Facebook
posts and the contentions raised by the Plaintiff/Appellant and concurred
with the findings of the learned Trial Court that none of the posts amounted
to defamation or resulted in any reputational loss to the Plaintiff.
Consequently, the Judgment and Decree of the learned Civil Judge
dismissing the Suit, were upheld.
30. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below, the
Plaintiff/Appellant has preferred the present Regular Second Appeal .
31. The grounds of challenge are that the learned Courts below, failed to
appreciate the scope of defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal
Code, which includes the making or publication of any imputation, by
words, signs or visible representations, with the intention of harming, or
with the knowledge or reason to believe that it would harm, the reputation of
a person.
32. It is asserted that the Facebook posts relied upon by the Appellant,
particularly those referring to his professional identity as a lawyer, amounted
to defamation and caused injury to his personal and professional reputation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 8 of 22
33. The finding that the name of the minor child had not been changed, is
assailed as having been based solely on oral testimony, despite the failure of
the Defendants to produce any documentary evidence in support thereof.
34. The decision in Ram Jethmalani v. Subramanian Swamy has also been
incorrectly applied to the facts of the present case. In the said decision, the
defendant had not entered the witness box and damages of Rs.5,00,000/-
were awarded to the plaintiff. Likewise, in the present case, Defendant Nos.
2 and 3 did not step into the witness box, while the testimony of Defendant
No. 1 was vague, as she repeatedly stated during her cross-examination that
she did not remember the Facebook posts and did not specifically deny their
contents. Therefore, the Judgment has not been rightly interpreted by the
two Courts.
35. The learned Courts below also failed to appreciate the defamatory
tenor of expressions such as “kick his ass”, “beech sadak par goli maar
do”, “P for Pajama”, “20 gms of brain”, “he is not insaan”, “if you are a
lawyer?”, “Anil Babbar/pyar se vakil babu”, “She calls me Papa” and “I
kept your place very well”, severely impaired the personal and professional
reputation of the Appellant. The essential elements of cyber defamation,
namely, a false imputation, intention to harm, publication to third persons
and consequent injury to reputation, were duly established in the present
case. The Facebook posts also caused severe emotional distress to the
Appellant.
36. The learned Courts further failed to consider the matrimonial discord
between the parties and the institution of false and frivolous proceedings
against the Plaintiff. Viewed in this background, the Facebook posts were
false, malicious and calculated to damage his reputation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 9 of 22
37. PW-2, Mr. Sumeet Puri, husband of Defendant No. 3, admitted in his
cross-examination that the Facebook posts, Ex. PW-1/4, had been planned
by the Respondents, in his presence. The testimonies of PW-3, Mr. Sanjay
Kumar, and PW-4, Mr. Krishan Kumar, as well as the judgments relied upon
by the Appellant, have not been duly considered. Even though some of the
statements may appear innocuous on their face, their hidden and secondary
meaning, was sufficient to cause harm to the reputation of the Appellant.
The false statements were also communicated to third parties with the
intention of lowering the Appellant’s character and reputation in the
estimation of the public.
38. Both the learned Civil Judge and the learned District Judge failed to
appreciate the evidence and the Facebook posts in their proper perspective,
despite their defamatory nature and the consequent injury caused to the
Appellant’s reputation. A prayer has, therefore, been made for setting aside
the impugned Judgments and Decrees.
Submissions heard and the record perused.
39. At the outset, it may be observed that the jurisdiction of this Court in
a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is confined to a
substantial question of law. The concurrent findings of fact returned by the
learned Courts below cannot be interfered with, unless it is shown that such
findings are perverse, being based on no evidence, or on inadmissible
evidence, or contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or contrary to the
law as declared by the Supreme Court.
40. In the present case, no substantial question of law has been
formulated or proposed by the Appellant . Even otherwise, upon a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 10 of 22
consideration of the Judgments of the learned Courts below and the grounds
raised in the present Appeal, no substantial question of law is found to arise,
as is evident from the discussion hereinafter.
I. Whether the Facebook posts constitute defamation:
41. The principal grievance of the Appellant is that the various Facebook
posts made by the Defendants were directed against him and had caused
harm to his personal and professional reputation.
42. For a statement to constitute defamation, it is not sufficient that it may
have caused hurt, annoyance or emotional distress to the person concerned.
It must be established that the imputation was made or published concerning
that person and was such as lowered his reputation in the estimation of
others. The Facebook posts relied upon by the Plaintiff have to be examined
on this touchstone.
43. The learned Civil Judge has considered each of the Facebook posts
separately, while the learned District Judge has reappreciated the posts and
the evidence led by the parties. The essential parts of the posts, are as
under:-
Post dated 18.09.2015 by Defendant No. 2:
“ Shame on those who don‟t respect the feelings and
emotions of their wife..making a hundred commitments
before marriage 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 applicable on your own daughters?
Missing my sister Upasna Kapoor .”
Post dated 14.06.2016 by Defendant No.2:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 11 of 22
“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. ”
Post dated 25.06.2016 by Defendant No.2:
“ Hey guys, any idea how to download birth certificate (oct
2015) online? ”
Post dated 27.06.2016 by Defendant No.2:
“ Single mothers can do better than being is false
relationship.”
Post dated 27.06.2016 by Defendant No. 2:
“ Anyone for assistance in New passport for new born
baby? ”
Post dated 30.06.2016 by Defendant No. 2:
“ Hey guys, any suggestion for baby girl‟s name?? Alphabet
is „S‟ and „D‟. Thanks.”
Post dated 12.07.2016 by Defendant No. 2:
“ Heights of Doubt ….”
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 .”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 12 of 22
Post dated 26.08.2016 by Defendant No. 2:
A picture of the plaintiff‟s daughter with the name “Saanvi”
during Krishna Janmashtami, with the caption: “Upasana
Kapoor, nothing 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.”
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. 2 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 handicapped and can‟t bear d responsibility of his
wife and children.”
Post dated 25.09.2016 by Defendant No. 2:
“Our daughter …saanvi Kapoor:) she is so funny and
cute…learning alphabet..m for mam 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 :) ”
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 productive things…Happy burning! ”
Post dated 11.10.2016 by Defendant No. 2:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 13 of 22
“Dusshera celebration with my little niece and sis…little
princess is enjoying the best time of her lite 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."
Post dated 24.10.2016 by Defendant No. 2:
"Baby Kapoor is celebrating her Ist 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. fife it.
and pretend to smile in the pain ... yod bless them with
200gms of brain ;)"
Post dated 22.08.2017 by Defendant No. 2:
“ My dearest brother-in-law (ANIL BABBAR / प्यार से
वकल बाबू ),
I am so thankful for your wishes and please convey my
regards 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 embrace that I
couldn‟t invite you and your BABBAR parivaar on this
occasion.
But believe me; you were into my heart, hence keeping
शाद कमलनी का कम्बल for you.
But I am sad that you didn‟t miss me as I In fact, you didn‟t
once call me, your wife and YOUR CUTEΛdo miss you
DAUGHTER SAANVI. Unfortunately, you were not around,
when Saanvi started calling Papa and then she considered
me as her god father, and . I celebrated her 1st birthday at
Hotelϑshe calls me “Papa” sometime Leela Palace and it
was amazing.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 14 of 22
Sadly, Saanvi did‟nt receive any gift from her
GRANDPARENTS 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 enemy). She is the
only and first children in your family; don‟t you understand
the importance of this? Nevertheless, 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 giggling 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 rejection of a new born baby GIRL and her mother
acceptable in your family? What is the use of your
education, if it does not support your feelings towards 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 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,
does not 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 AroraAshok BoseMansi
Ahuja Amit Kumar ....
Regards Deepak Kapoor. This is my own decision and i am
happy with it.
Post dated 18.07.2016 by Defendant No. 3:
Post dated 24.10.2016 by Defendant No. 1:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 15 of 22
“Jo insaan apne bache ka nahi ho saka who kabhi kissi ka
nahi ho sakta. Am I right or wrong? Aise insaan ka kya
karna chahiye, Please tell .”
Comments made by Defendant No. 1 & 2 on post dated
18.06.2017:
“ Defendant no. 2 commented: “Saanvi is celebrating Happy
God-father‟s Day today :) But she didn‟t wish me yet :)”
Defendant No. 1 commented: “I‟m her mother and father.
I‟m very happy with her. God Bless her .”
Post dated 17.08.2017 by Defendant No. 1:
“Saanvi our chhoti Radha Rani, celebrated her second Shri
Krishna Janamashtami & Independence /Jay al Nanu &
Nani‟s house. Very happy, dancing & enjoying. God Bless
her.”
(a). Posts relating to the minor daughter:
44. A large number of the Facebook posts relate to the minor daughter of
the parties. These include the posts seeking assistance regarding her Birth
Certificate and Passport, inviting suggestions for a name beginning with the
letters “S” and “D”, and affectionately referring to the minor daughter as
“Saanvi Kapoor” .
45. The Plaintiff has not been able to establish that the official name of
the minor daughter was ever changed from “Samriddhi Babbar” to “Saanvi
Kapoor”. The Defendant No. 1 has explained that the child was
affectionately called “Saanvi”, while her official name continued to remain
“Samriddhi Babbar”. Merely calling the child by an affectionate name or
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 16 of 22
seeking suggestions for such name, cannot amount to defamation of the
Plaintiff.
46. The grievance that the surname “Kapoor” was used along with the
name “Saanvi” may have been a cause of concern or emotional distress to
the Plaintiff, but it cannot be construed as an imputation which lowered his
reputation in the eyes of any person. The same could not give rise to a cause
of action for damages on account of defamation.
47. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 being the mother, had a right to choose
the name of the daughter. In case the father was aggrieved, he has judicial
remedy, but merely because the Defendant No. 2 sought suggestions or
affectionately was calling the child as Saanvi, is not defamatory as has been
rightly held by the two Courts.
48. One such Facebook post, on which emphasis has been placed, was
written to the Plaintiff in detail, only to state that Defendant No.2 (maternal
uncle) had immense affection for the daughter and was willing to adopt her,
having sufficient means to do so. How can this be termed as defamatory or
harmful to the reputation of the Plaintiff, has neither been explained nor
proved, nor can such post can be said to have harmed the Plaintiff's
reputation.
49. The next set of posts contains photographs of the minor daughter on
occasions such as Janmashtami, Dussehra and her birthday, showing her
celebrating with Defendant No. 1 and her maternal family. Merely posting
photographs of the child or expressing happiness on such occasions, cannot
be termed defamatory. These posts may have caused anguish to the Plaintiff
on account of his separation from the minor child, but emotional pain cannot
be equated with loss of reputation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 17 of 22
(b). Posts concerning the matrimonial relationship:
50. The other set of posts contains general comments on the conduct
expected of a man as a husband and father and criticise men who do not
respect their wives or children or fail to discharge their familial
responsibilities. The posts dated 18.09.2015, 14.06.2016, 27.06.2016 and
24.09.2016, do not specifically name the Plaintiff.
51. Even if these posts are read in the backdrop of the matrimonial
discord between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1, they essentially express
personal grievances concerning their matrimonial relationship. Such general
comments, without any specific imputation which could lower the Plaintiff in
the estimation of others, cannot be termed defamatory, as has been rightly
held by the learned Courts below.
(c). Sarcastic and unpleasant remarks:
52. Some of the posts contain sarcastic, unpleasant and distasteful
expressions, including “kick his ass”, “P for Pajama”, “200 gms of brain”,
“Happy burning” and “pyar se vakil babu”.
53. The posts have to be read in their entirety and in the context in which
they were made. They predominantly reflect matrimonial discord, personal
grievances and familial hostility. Undoubtedly, some of these expressions
are sarcastic, distasteful and reflect the bitterness which had developed
between the parties and their family members. However, every sarcastic,
offensive or unpleasant remark cannot by any stretch, by itself, constitute
defamation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 18 of 22
54. Merely referring to the Plaintiff as a lawyer or addressing him as
“vakil babu,” ia a statement of fact and cannot cause harm to his
professional reputation. No evidence has been led to show that any client,
colleague or member of the legal profession, formed an adverse opinion
about the Plaintiff or that his professional standing suffered on account of
these posts.
55. The two learned Courts have therefore, rightly concluded that,
though some of the posts may have caused personal hurt or emotional
distress to the Plaintiff, they did not result in any proved loss of reputation
and could not constitute defamation.
56. To sum up, the learned District Judge had rightly observed as under:
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 plaintiff was not tagged
or named in almost all the posts except one. Thus, it is
highly unlikely that the post 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 .”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 19 of 22
57. The learned District Judge has thus, rightly observed that, though the
Plaintiff may have felt personally attacked and the posts may have caused
hurt at a personal level, no concrete evidence was produced to show that his
professional or public reputation had been diminished. The posts essentially
reflected familial discord and personal frustration and did not result in any
proven injury to his standing as an Advocate or in society.
58. The learned Civil Judge has considered the contents of each Facebook
post, and the learned District Judge has independently reappreciated the
evidence and affirmed the findings of the learned Civil Judge. The
concurrent findings are based upon the pleadings and evidence on record
and cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to law.
II. Whether publication and loss of reputation have been proved:
59. It is next contended that the testimonies of PW-3, Mr. Sanjay Kumar,
and PW-4, Mr. Krishan Kumar, have not been considered by the learned
Courts below. However, the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4, cannot establish
loss of reputation when the acts itself, have been held to be non-defamatory.
Significantly, the Plaintiff was neither named nor tagged in most of the
Facebook posts.
60. It is also pertinent to note that PW-2, Mr. Sumeet Puri, is none other
than the estranged husband of the sister of the Defendant No. 1 and his
testimony has been rightly disbelieved by the two Courts. Even otherwise,
his testimony also does not prove the acts defamatory, which otherwise
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 20 of 22
have been found to be not meeting the criteria of defamation or loss of
reputation.
61. PW-3 and PW-4 were also unable to satisfactorily explain how the
posts became visible to them or how they understood the posts to be
referring to the Plaintiff. Their testimonies, therefore, neither establish
publication of the alleged imputations concerning the Plaintiff nor any
consequent lowering of his reputation.
62. The contention that Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 did not enter the witness
box, also does not advance the case of the Appellant. The initial burden was
upon the Plaintiff to establish that the posts contained defamatory
imputations concerning him, that they had been published to third persons
and that they had caused injury to his reputation. The non-examination of
Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 could neither relieve the Plaintiff of this burden nor
cure the deficiencies in the evidence led by him.
III. Complaints and registration of FIR:
63. The Plaintiff has also referred to the Complaints and the FIR
registered at the instance of Defendant No. 1. Mere lodging of a Complaint
before the competent authority, does not constitute defamation merely
because the allegations are disputed by the person against whom they are
made. In the absence of any finding that the allegations were false and were
circulated with the intention of harming the reputation of the Plaintiff, the
filing of such Complaints cannot sustain a claim for damages.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 21 of 22
Conclusion:
64. The Appellant, through the present Appeal, essentially seeks
reappreciation of the evidence and a different interpretation of the Facebook
posts. No substantial question of law arises for consideration.
65. There is no merit in the Appeal, which is hereby dismissed . Pending
Applications, if any, are also disposed of, accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JULY 30, 2026/RS
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.07.2026
14:51:51
RSA 90/2026 Page 22 of 22