The right to privacy in matrimonial matters is protected under Article 21, and courts must carefully balance this right against freedom of expression when considering interim injunctions in defamation cases.

JUDGMENT

Alok Mathur, J.

Heard Sri. Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri. Pranjal Krishna, Sri. Abhinava Bhattacharya, Sri. Sajal Yadav, Sri. Utkarsh Vardhan Singh and Ms. Aishvarya Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. By means of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.04.2024, passed in Civil Suit No. 1286 of 2024 - Priti Ravindra Shukla v. Aparna Soni @ Aparna Thakur and Another, in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow wherein the trial Court while entertaining the said suit has issued notices to the defendants therein, but on the other hand has declined to pass any order on the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code(hereinafter referred to as CPC) preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff, seeking to restrain the defendants as well as their agents from publishing any material against the husband of the petitioner thereby defaming him and their family especially considering the fact that husband of the plaintiff is contestant at the General Elections.

3. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner is married to one Ravindra Shukla since 10.12.1993 and has four children out of the said wedlock. According to the petitioner a suit has been filed on the basis of false and fictitious claim/allegations made by the opposite parties that opposite party no. 2 is biological daughter of the husband of the petitioner before Civil Courts at Mumbai. It has further been stated that husband of the petitioner is contesting General Elections and on the eve of elections the opposite parties have held a press conference on 15/04/2024 where in defendant no. 2 has staked her claim that husband of petitioner is her biological father.

4. It has been submitted that prior to making the said claim legal notice was sent to the family of petitioner in which they had sought an amount of Rs. 20 Crores as maintenance, alleging that the opposite party no. 2 is the daughter of the husband of the petitioner. It has been submitted that notice was duly responded to by the petitioner, and it was specifically denied that husband of petitioner is the father of defendant no. 2. A First Information Report for extortion has been lodged against the opposite parties. It has been further submitted that opposite party no. 2 has filed a declaratory suit at Bombay City Civil Court, Worli Division being Suit No. 982 of 2024, seeking declaration and injunction to the effect that husband of petitioner is her father.

5. It has been next submitted that in the said suit an ad-interim-relief application was made to hold a DNA test, which prayer has been rejected by means of order dated 26.04.2024. A copy of the said order has been produced before this Court.

6. Looking at the conduct of the opposite parties, and specially their actions in holding a press conference to allegedly defame the family of the petitioner and especially her husband, a suit has been filed before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lucknow for a decree of mandatory injunction against the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 be commanded to refrain from holding themselves out as the wife and daughter of the petitioner's husband, and also for restraining them or their agents from speaking, printing, publishing, selling or exhibiting, circulating, streaming and sharing any information and spoken words or in writing defaming the petitioner or her matrimony.

7. Grievance of the petitioner which has been raised in the present writ petition is that in the above suit, filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow notices have been issued on 24.04.2024, but the trial court has declined to pass any ex-parte interim injunction in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order the present petition has been filed.

8. It has been submitted by Sri. Jaideep Narain Mathur learned Senior Advocate that facts of the present case would indicate that after more