1. Core Legal Principle: Image is a “Personality Right”

Indian courts increasingly recognise that a person’s image/likeness has commercial value and cannot be exploited without consent.

The Supreme Court has linked this to privacy:

• Individuals control how their identity is used commercially
• Unauthorized use may amount to violation of dignity and autonomy

This principle becomes crucial after divorce because:

• Former spouses often misuse photos, videos, or reputation in disputes
• Monetisation attempts may arise via social media, ads, or publicity content

2. Post-Divorce Issue: Can an Ex-Spouse Monetise Your Image?

General Rule:

A former spouse cannot legally monetise your personal image without consent, even after divorce.

However:

• If images were jointly created (e.g., wedding photos), copyright ownership may matter
• If content is already public, courts examine commercial exploitation vs fair use

3. Important Case Laws (India)

(A) K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

The Supreme Court recognised right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.

Held:

• Individuals control dissemination of personal information and identity
• Protection includes bodily and informational autonomy

Relevance:
After divorce, ex-spouse cannot commercially exploit personal identity without consent.

(B) Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012, Delhi HC)

One of the earliest strong personality rights cases in India.

Held:

• Celebrities have exclusive rights over commercial use of their identity
• Unauthorized use of image implies false endorsement

Relevance:
Even non-celebrities can rely on this principle where identity is commercially misused post-relationship.

(C) ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises (2003, Delhi HC)

Held:

• Right to publicity protects commercial value of identity
• It can only belong to individuals, not corporations

Relevance:
An ex-spouse cannot treat your identity as a commercial asset after divorce.

(D) Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions (Rajinikanth case, 2015, Madras HC)

Held:

• Personality rights include name, voice, and likeness
• Unauthorized exploitation is actionable even without proving confusion

Relevance:
Protects against use of a person’s identity in films, media, or content after separation.

(E) Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi (2012–ongoing jurisprudence, Delhi HC line of cases)

Held:

• Courts can grant broad injunctions to protect personality rights
• Prevents misuse of name/image for commercial gain

Relevance:
Useful where ex-spouse or third party uses identity in monetised online content.

(F) Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi (2021, Delhi HC)

(Related to Sushant Singh Rajput biopic)

Held:

• Personality rights are generally not inheritable
• Rights die with the individual (in this context)

Relevance:
Shows limitation: heirs/ex-spouses cannot claim control unless independent legal right exists.

(G) Asha Bhosle v. Indipop Records / Digital misuse cases (Bombay HC line, 2025)

Courts restrained monetisation of singer’s identity.

Held:

• Digital exploitation of identity without consent is infringement
• Platforms can be ordered to remove monetised content

Relevance:
Strong precedent against online monetisation of persona.

(H) Ilaiyaraaja Personality Rights case (Madras HC, 2025 interim orders)

Held:

• Commercial exploitation of identity on digital platforms is actionable
• Courts can block monetised misuse of personality

Relevance:
Supports injunctions against monetisation of personal identity content.

4. Monetisation After Divorce — Typical Legal Scenarios

(1) Ex-spouse using your photos for social media revenue

Example:

• YouTube channels
• Instagram reels monetisation
• “storytime” divorce content using your identity

👉 Likely actionable under:

• Privacy violation (Article 21)
• Defamation
• Passing off

(2) Selling wedding photos / private images

Even if ex-spouse took the photos:

• Copyright may exist in photographer
• But commercial exploitation of identifiable person requires consent

(3) Fake endorsements or AI-generated misuse

Recent courts (2025–2026 trend) strongly prohibit:

• Deepfake use
• AI-generated likeness monetisation
• Impersonation ads

(4) Using marital reputation in monetised content (“divorce stories”)

Courts may allow narration of personal experience, but:

• Commercial exploitation + identifiable identity = unlawful
• Especially if defamatory or misleading

5. Legal Remedies Available

A person can seek:

Civil Remedies

• Injunction (stop use immediately)
• Damages for commercial exploitation
• Take-down orders for online content

Constitutional Remedies

• Protection under Article 21 (privacy & dignity)

Tort Remedies

• Passing off (false endorsement)
• Defamation
• Misappropriation of identity

6. Key Legal Principle (Summary)

Even after divorce:

Your personal image remains your personality right, not a transferable asset to your ex-spouse.

However:

• It is enforced through privacy + tort + copyright + constitutional law, not a single statute
• Courts balance it against freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a))

Final Conclusion

Indian law clearly trends toward protecting individuals from post-divorce monetisation of their personal identity, especially in the digital age. Courts increasingly treat:

• image
• likeness
• voice
• personal stories

as commercially valuable personality rights, requiring consent for exploitation.