The case was filed under O.S. No. 7322\/2025<\/strong>, where the plaintiff sought an urgent injunction against his former wife (Defendant No.6) and the television network airing Bigg Boss (Defendant No.1). The plaintiff alleged that his ex-wife, now appearing on television, had been using the platform to make \u201cfalse, malicious, scandalous, and derogatory\u201d<\/strong> comments about his personal and marital life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The injunction<\/a> plea was filed through I.A. No.1<\/strong>, in which the plaintiff requested the court to restrain all defendants \u2014 including the media network and digital platforms \u2014 from:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cpublishing, broadcasting, telecasting, uploading, sharing, circulating or otherwise disseminating any defamatory, scandalous, false, malicious or derogatory statements or visuals relating to the personal and marital life of the Plaintiff through any medium including electronic, digital, social media platforms or print media.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The affidavit submitted by the plaintiff stated that the Defendant No.6 is his former wife and she is a participant in the reality show by name Bigboss telecasted in the television of the Defendant No.1<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The order records that in the said show, the defendant:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cis making false and malicious allegations against the Plaintiff in order to harm the reputation of the Plaintiff. Such statements of Defendant No.6 is being broadcasted, telecasted, uploaded through the television, other platforms such as Youtube, Facebook, Instagram and other digital media.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The plaintiff further produced evidence of the marriage\u2019s legal dissolution, pointing out that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cthe marriage between himself and the Defendant No.6 was ended with dissolution vide Mediation Agreement dated 12.11.2024 and a mutual consent Divorce<\/a> was granted vide Decree dated 13.11.2024 by the Third Addl. Family Court in M.C No.3307\/2024.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The court observed from the records that: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cthe marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.6 was ended in dissolution by mutual consent, wherein both have agreed that they have no claims against each other and no cases or complaint are pending between them.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Despite this clear settlement, the plaintiff alleged that his ex-wife continued to make malicious statements publicly. The order notes, <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe learned counsel for the Plaintiff has produced the printouts of certain social media apps, wherein it appears that the Defendant No.6 is making allegation against the Plaintiff. The apprehension of the Plaintiff is that such allegations made against him will harm his reputation and they are far from truth.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n After examining the plaint, affidavit, and evidence, the court held that the man had established a prima facie case<\/strong>. The judge stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cConsidering the averments made in the Plaint, affidavit in support of I.A.No.1 and also the printouts produced by the Plaintiff, I am of the opinion that the Plaintiff has made out prima-facie case for grant of the Exparte order of Temporary Injunction.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The order added:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIf such injunction is not granted and any false, malicious, scandalous, defamatory or derogatory statements are made by the Defendant No.6 or published in any social media platforms or telecasted in the television, the same may harm the reputation of the Plaintiff and may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. In order to avoid such unwarranted hardship to the Plaintiff and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, I proceed to pass the following.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Defendant No.6 is hereby restrained from making false, malicious, derogatory, scandalous and defamatory statements against the personal and marital life of the Plaintiff till next date of hearing.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Further, the judge also protected the plaintiff\u2019s dignity from being attacked through the media, directing that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Defendants No.1 to 5 are hereby restrained from publishing, broadcasting, telecasting, uploading, sharing, circulating any such false, malicious, derogatory, scandalous and defamatory statements of the Defendant No.6 in any television or in any social media platforms till next date of hearing.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The judge instructed the office to issue summons and notice as per Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)<\/strong> and fixed the next date of hearing as 11 November 2025<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This case has sparked debate among men\u2019s rights supporters who see it as an example of how divorced men continue to be harassed even after legal separation. Despite a mutual consent divorce<\/strong> and a written agreement stating no disputes remain, the ex-wife allegedly chose to use her public platform to damage her former husband\u2019s name<\/strong> \u2014 something that has become increasingly common in celebrity and social media culture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Activists argue that while women\u2019s safety and dignity must always be protected, men\u2019s reputations deserve equal legal protection<\/strong>. A man\u2019s personal life should not be publicly humiliated for \u201centertainment\u201d or \u201ccontent.\u201d In this case, the court recognized that a false media portrayal<\/strong> can be as damaging as any false criminal allegation.<\/p>\n\n\n This Bengaluru order shows that courts are now taking post-divorce defamation<\/strong> seriously, especially when social media and TV platforms amplify such personal attacks. It reinforces that men, too, have a right to live with dignity after marriage<\/strong>, without being repeatedly targeted by false narratives or reality-show dramatization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judgment in O.S. No. 7322\/2025<\/strong> is more than just a temporary injunction \u2014 it\u2019s a symbolic stand for men\u2019s reputation rights<\/strong> in the age of digital defamation. As men\u2019s rights advocates put it, the case sends a clear message: freedom of expression cannot be used as freedom to defame<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Key Legal Findings by the Court<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Legal Insight (For Men\u2019s Rights)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Case Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
The Court\u2019s Finding<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
The Court\u2019s Order<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Men\u2019s Rights<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
![\"Bengaluru](\"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Bengaluru-Court-1024x576.webp\" "\\"\\"")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\nFinal Reflection<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Laws, Rules & Legal Provisions Mentioned<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section \/ Rule<\/th> Description<\/th> Application in this Case<\/th><\/tr><\/thead> Order 39 Rule 1, 2 CPC<\/strong><\/td> Civil Procedure Code provision for granting Temporary Injunction<\/strong> to prevent harm, injury, or injustice during trial.<\/td> Used
by the Plaintiff to stop publication\/broadcast of defamatory content before
trial conclusion.<\/td><\/tr>Order 39 Rule 3 CPC<\/strong><\/td> Requires that when a court grants an ex-parte injunction, notice and a copy of the order must be served to the opposite party immediately.<\/td> Court directed its office to issue suit summons and notice as per this rule after granting ex-parte injunction.<\/td><\/tr> Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)<\/strong><\/td> Main procedural law governing civil suits in India.<\/td> Provides the framework for injunction, notice, and trial procedure.<\/td><\/tr> Defamation (Sections 499\u2013500 IPC)<\/strong> (implicitly applicable)<\/td> Criminal provisions defining and penalizing defamation \u2014 making or publishing any false statement harming another\u2019s reputation.<\/td> Though this case is civil, the same principles apply; the plaintiff alleged \u201cfalse, malicious, derogatory and scandalous statements.\u201d<\/td><\/tr> Right to Reputation (Article 21, Constitution of India<\/a>)<\/strong> (implicitly protected)<\/td> Reputation is part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.<\/td> The court protected the plaintiff\u2019s right to reputation from being damaged on public platforms.<\/td><\/tr> Mutual Consent Divorce under Section 13B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a><\/strong> (referred via factual background)<\/td> Allows both spouses to dissolve marriage mutually through consent and settlement.<\/td> The plaintiff and Defendant No.6 had already obtained a mutual consent divorce (M.C. No. 3307\/2024).<\/td><\/tr> Mediation Settlement (under Family Courts Act, 1984<\/a>)<\/strong><\/td> Dispute resolution method leading to binding settlement agreement before divorce decree.<\/td> Plaintiff produced mediation agreement dated 12.11.2024 showing both parties had \u201cno claims or complaints.\u201d<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Court Observation \/ Principle<\/th> Explanation<\/th><\/tr><\/thead> Prima Facie Case Established<\/strong><\/td> The judge found that the plaintiff showed sufficient evidence that defamatory statements were being made against him.<\/td><\/tr> Irreparable
Harm to Reputation<\/strong><\/td>Court noted that if injunction was not granted, \u201cfalse, malicious, scandalous, defamatory or derogatory statements\u201d would harm the man\u2019s reputation and cause multiplicity of proceedings.<\/td><\/tr> Balance of Convenience in Plaintiff\u2019s Favor<\/strong><\/td> Court believed that stopping defamatory statements temporarily would cause no harm to the defendants but would protect the man from undue public humiliation.<\/td><\/tr> Digital and TV Media Accountability<\/strong><\/td> The order extended to television, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and other digital media platforms, recognizing modern media\u2019s role in reputation damage.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Issue<\/th> Men\u2019s Rights Angle \/ Real-World Impact<\/th><\/tr><\/thead> Defamation After Divorce<\/strong><\/td> Shows how some ex-wives continue public defamation after mutual separation \u2014 weaponizing media for sympathy or attention.<\/td><\/tr> Media Trial Against Men<\/strong><\/td> Highlights misuse of reality shows and social media to malign men\u2019s image without evidence or accountability.<\/td><\/tr> Court\u2019s Proactive Role<\/strong><\/td> Bengaluru court acted swiftly ex parte \u2014 showing judiciary\u2019s willingness to protect a man\u2019s dignity in the digital era.<\/td><\/tr> Recognition of Men\u2019s Reputation Rights<\/strong><\/td> Confirms that men too have the constitutional right to reputation under Article 21.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n \n