Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court has restrained the 54-year-old woman Aparna Soni, who claims that BJP’s Gorakhpur MP Ravi Kishan is the father of her daughter, from making any further fresh claims. 

The order was passed in a plea moved by Kishan’s wife Priti Shukla against the trial court's April 24 order refusing to grant interim injunction against the two women. 

The high court interfered with the trial court's order to the extent that "ex-parte interim injunction has been denied" and set aside the same. Court ordered the matter to be remitted to the trial court to pass fresh orders on Priti's application to restrain the two women from publishing any material against Kishan.

Court asked the trial court to also consider passing of an interim injunction during the pendency of Priti's application expeditiously, within a period of one week.

Till the decision of the trial court, the high court restrained the two women from making any new claim. Court clarified that protection granted to Priti by its order will be available only till such time as suitable orders are passed by the trial court on her application. 

In the defamation suit instituted by Priti Shukla, a plea was also filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow to restrain Aparna Soni and her daughter Shinova from making any claims against Kishan.

On April 24, the trial court, though issued notice to the two women in the suit, it denied passing any order on Priti's application.

Seeking relief, Priti approached the high court stating that her husband, Ravi Kishan, is contesting the General Elections-2024 and the opposite parties are making such claims to defame, harass, and malign her family to lower their reputation and esteem in the eyes of the public.

On April 15, Aparna Soni and Shinova held a press conference alleging that Ravi Kishan is Shinova's biological father. Soni also filed a suit before the Civil Courts in Mumbai in which she sought a DNA test. Prior to making the said claim, a legal notice was sent by Aparna and Shinova to Kishan's family seeking Rs. 20 Crores as maintenance.

Thereafter, Priti filed an FIR at Lucknow’s Hazratganj police station for extortion against the two women. 

Before the high court, Senior Counsel Jaideep Narain Mathur, representing Priti, argued that after more than 25 years, Shinova has claimed that Kishan is her father. It, therefore, proves that the said allegations are on the face of it, false and baseless, he contended. 

If the two women are allowed to defame and malign the reputation of Priti and her family, it will have an adverse effect on their matrimonial reputation and affect the electoral chances of Ravi Kishan in the forthcoming General Elections, the Senior Counsel argued. 

Taking note of the facts of the case, the bench of Justice Alok Mathur opined that the trial court should have considered Priti's case in its proper perspective. 

Court highlighted that the two women had already held a press conference and are further disseminating the disputed content on social media. Damage to reputation would undoubtedly cause irreparable damage and cannot be fully compensated by the award of damages, the single judge bench opined. 

Therefore, the high court held that the denial of the interim temporary injunction by the trial court, without considering the relevant aspects of the matter was arbitrary.

"in as much as it had not even proceeded to consider the case of the petitioner and was cursorily rejected after recording that the same would be considered after giving opportunity to the opposite parties. The impugned order does not even indicate proper application of mind," the high court held. 

However, while remitting back the matter to the trial court for passing fresh order on Priti's application, the high court said that while considering the application for grant of ad interim injunction, the trial court shall not be bound by the observations made by it in the present order.

Case Title: Priti Ravindra Shukla v. Aparna Soni @ Aparna Thakur And Another