CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN A. Nos. 2168 & 2169 of 2026 in C.S.No.111 of 2025 Aarthi Ravi D/o.Vijayakumar Presently residing at No.65, Kalpana House,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-05-2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
A. Nos. 2168 & 2169 of 2026 in C.S.No.111 of 2025
Aarthi Ravi
D/o.Vijayakumar Presently residing at No.65, Kalpana House, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 004.
..Applicant/1st Defendant Vs
1. Mohan Ravi
S/o.A.Mohan, No.1-B,
Govindham Apartments, 2nd Lane,
Chamiers Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. .. 1st Respondent/Plaintiff
2. Mrs.Sujatha Vijayakumar
W/o.Vijayakumar, No.65,
Kalpana House,
Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 004.
..2nd Respondent/2nd
Defendant
Prayer : A.No.2168 of 2026 is filed to permit the Applicant/1st Defendant to address a press meet solely for the purpose of issuing clarification with respect to maintenance issues, denial of custody and overall rebuttal to his interview dated 16/05/2026 to such condition as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper pending disposal of the above suit.
Prayer : A.No.2169 of 2026 is filed to grant appropriate directions directing the removal/take down of all offending materials/posts concerning the matrimonial dispute between the parties from all print, online and social media platforms pursuant to the press meet given by the 1st respondent/Plaintiff dated 16/05/2026, in strict adherence and compliance of the order dated 23/05/2025 passed in O.A.No.525 of 2025 and A.No.2424 of 2025 in C.S.No.111 of 2025 pending disposal of the above suit.
For Applicant: Mr. J.Ravindran, Senior Counsel for Ms. M.Sneha Mr. Kavin Bharathan
For 1st Respondent: Mr. Sricharan Rangarajan, Senior Counsel for Mr. Vignesh Venkatachalam
COMMON ORDER
Heard Mr.J.Ravindran, learned senior counsel for the defendants and
Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff.
2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 21.05.2026, Mr.Vignesh Venkatachalam has filed a typed set of papers and an additional affidavit duly served on the defendants. A perusal of the same shows that the plaintiff, as undertaken by him on the previous date of hearing, has written letters to various agencies who had participated in the press meet held on 16.05.2026. In the said letters, he has requested the removal of all articles, videos, clips, excerpts, thumbnails, captions, publications, re-posts and designations of any manner of the press meet held on the aforesaid date. In addition, these letters have been received and confirmations have also been obtained from the concerned press authorities.
3. In addition, he has also written to YouTube, calling upon them to remove the URLs in which the press meet has been uploaded. He has received an automated response from YouTube stating that an order of the Court is required.
4. The plaintiffs had obtained an order from this Court of a super injunction on 23.05.2025 in O.A.No.525 of 2025 & A.No.2424 of 2025 in C.S.No.111 of 2025 in the following terms:
“10.The media, both print as well as online are restrained from posting or hosting or debating any information concerning the matrimonial dispute between the applicant / plaintiff and the first respondent / defendant. The online portals and websites are directed to take down the offending / defamatory contents pertaining to the matrimonial dispute between the applicant / plaintiff and the first respondent / defendant. Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India, New Delhi to ensure prompt and effective compliance of this order. ”
Hence, there is no necessity for a separate order when an order of injunction has been operating against both the print as well as online media for more than a year. The print as well as online media were also called upon to take down any offending or defamatory contents pertaining to the matrimonial dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. That order operates even as on today. Hence, the plaintiff will immediately communicate the order dated 23.05.2025 to YouTube and call upon them to remove all URLs which pertain to the press meet dated 16.05.2026.
5. Mr.J.Ravindran states that on account of the popularity of the plaintiff, the YouTube channels have been visited a million times. He states that the damage caused to her cannot be repaired. At the same time, he is also clear that he does not want this Court to proceed further and punish the plaintiff for contempt. He seeks a publication from the plaintiff expressing his regret for having spoken about the matrimonial discord in the press meet held on 16.05.2026.
6. Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan is willing to publish an advertisement at his costs. The said statement is recorded. The advertisement shall be published in a publication which has circulation throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. It shall specifically state that the applicant expresses regret for having violated the order dated 23.05.2025. The publication should further state that the plaintiff expresses his apology to any person who may have been hurt or affected by the statements made by him during the press meet. A copy of the publication shall be handed over by the counsel for the plaintiff to the counsel for the defendants. This exercise should be completed within one week from today.
7. The statement of Mr.J.Ravindran that the plaintiff is at liberty to meet the children at any point of time is also recorded. On account of the fair statement made by Mr.J.Ravindran and also on account of the several remedial steps taken by the plaintiff, this Court is not inclined to proceed further as against the plaintiff for having violated the order.
8. Both these applications stand closed on the above terms.
29-05-2026 KJ/SSD
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
KJ/SSD
A. Nos. 2168 & 2169 of 2026 in C.S.No.111 of 2025
29-05-2026
