Hon’ble Justice. Mr. N. Senthilkumar, heard the personality suit between Madhampatty Thangavelu and Joy Crizildaa. The plaintiff was represented by the respected Senior Advocate Srinath Seidevan and the defendant was represented by the respected senior counsel Mr. S. Prabakaran.

The Hon’ble High court of Madras before the Single bench of Hon’ble Justice. Mr. N. Senthilkumar, heard the personality suit between Madhampatty Thangavelu and Joy Crizildaa.
The plaintiff was represented by the respected Senior Advocate Srinath Seidevan and the defendant was represented by the respected senior counsel Mr. S. Prabakaran.

The senior counsel for the defendant argued that granting a John Doe order would restrict matters of public record and hinder public discussion, and therefore such relief should not be awarded. During the course of hearing, it was revealed that the respondent had married the petitioner while her earlier divorce proceedings from her first husband were still pending. It was further established that the petitioner, Mr. Madhampatty Rangaraj, had coerced the respondent, Ms. Joy Crizilda, to divorce her first husband and marry him at the earliest, claiming that he too was separated from his wife, Ms. Shruthi Rangaraj. It was also alleged that Mr. Rangaraj physically abused Ms. Crizilda and forced her to undergo an abortion, which consequently caused impairment to her left ear.

Conversely, the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the John Doe order was essential to draw a distinction between legitimate news reporting and the spread of mere gossip within the media. He further contended that the marriage between the parties was not genuine but a mock ceremony conducted under alleged threats issued by the defendant. It was also argued that the petitioner was willing to assume full responsibility for the newborn child, subject to the DNA test establishing his paternity.
This submission was refuted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent with material proofs and the learned senior counsel contended that the rental agreements and the photographs coupled with admissions in the plaint proved the relationship and therefore, when the facts are true there cannot be an order of injunction, as the learned senior counsel relied on the judgements of the Hon’ble Courts based on Bonnard Principle.

The Hon’ble High Court of Madras, before the Single Bench of Justice N. Senthilkumar, heard both sides and made initial observations regarding the evidence produced. The Court noted that photographs filed in the record did not support the petitioner’s claim of threat or coercion, as the couple appeared happy in those images. Certain chat messages were also read out, which similarly did not indicate any element of compulsion. Additionally, it was observed that both parties were already married to other individuals when they entered into a marital relationship with each other in December 2023. Importantly, the Court noted that the petitioner’s plaint focused solely on alleged violations of his personality rights and nowhere expressly denied the existence of the marriage or relationship claimed by the respondent. Though, these observations were made, the Hon’ble Court reserved the orders on the applications.