Chennai: Actress Sathyaraj’s daughter Divya Sathyaraj has approached the Madras High Court with a Rs 1 crore defamation suit against actor Bayilvan Ranganathan and the YouTube channel Puthiya Sinthanai, following a controversy over remarks made about her views on marriage.
Divya, who is also associated with politics and social work, had expressed her personal perspective on marriage during an interview with another YouTube channel. She said couples should remain together because of their love for each other rather than simply because they are legally married.
The subsequent controversy led to legal action, with Divya alleging that comments made by Ranganathan in response to her interview were false and defamatory.
Madras High Court Grants Interim Protection to Divya Sathyaraj
According to the material supplied from The Hindu, Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi on September 24, 2026, restrained Bayilvan Ranganathan, along with Google LLC, Facebook India Online Services Private Limited and X Corp, from circulating the statements that were the subject of the complaint on YouTube or other social-media platforms.
The court reportedly found that Divya’s counsel, D. Ravichander, had established a prima facie case warranting interim protection.
The judge also observed that Divya could face significant harm to her reputation and goodwill if the requested interim injunction was not granted while her claim for damages remained pending.
The court further held that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff, according to the supplied report.
The interim order concerns the circulation of the disputed statements; it does not, by itself, constitute a final determination of the entire defamation claim.
What Did Divya Sathyaraj Say About Marriage?
The dispute reportedly began after Divya spoke about her personal views on relationships and marriage during an interview.
She said that couples should choose to be together because they are deeply in love rather than because marriage creates an obligation between them.
In the interview, she said:
“They should be together because they are crazy about each other, not because they are married… I don’t believe in this corporate wedding of getting married on the basis of religion, horoscope, and so on.”
Divya also referred to her family background while discussing horoscopes, saying that her father does not believe in such practices.
Her comments subsequently became the subject of public discussion, with actor Sathyaraj also expressing support for his daughter’s views through a social-media video.
Divya Seeks Rs 1 Crore in Damages
In her lawsuit, Divya has alleged that Bayilvan Ranganathan responded to her interview with statements that were false and defamatory.
She is seeking Rs 1 crore in damages, along with 12% interest from the date of filing the suit until the amount is realised.
The suit also names Mohideen, described as the owner of the Puthiya Sinthanai YouTube channel, in connection with the disputed content.
Divya has additionally sought a permanent injunction preventing Ranganathan from making, writing, publishing or broadcasting similar allegedly defamatory statements in the future.
Social Media Platforms Also Named in Proceedings
Divya has sought interim directions concerning the continued availability or circulation of the disputed material on social-media platforms.
The proceedings reportedly involve Google LLC, Facebook India Online Services Private Limited and X Corp, with Divya seeking restrictions on the hosting or continued circulation of the objectionable material.
The court’s interim order, as described in the supplied report, therefore extends beyond the individuals directly involved in the dispute and addresses the online dissemination of the statements.
Divya Sathyaraj’s Public and Political Work
Divya Sathyaraj is known not only as the daughter of actor Sathyaraj but also for her work as a nutritionist and social worker. The supplied report identifies her as the deputy secretary of the DMK Information Technology wing.
Her public comments on marriage were presented as personal views, rather than a statement of government or party policy.
The latest court proceedings concern whether the statements made in response to those comments were defamatory and whether their circulation should be restricted.
What Happens Next in the Defamation Case?
The Rs 1 crore damages claim remains pending before the Madras High Court. The interim injunction provides temporary protection concerning circulation of the disputed statements while the broader legal dispute continues.
The case is therefore still at the litigation stage, and the allegations made by the parties should not be treated as final findings unless and until the court reaches a final determination.
The controversy highlights how comments made during online interviews can quickly become the subject of wider public debate—and, in some cases, legal proceedings when one party alleges that subsequent statements have caused reputational harm.
