Hindustan Times ST (Mumbai) - Live
Leander’s plea questioning ex-partner’s maintenance to be heard on Dec 17
MUMBAI: The sessions court on Thursday adjourned the plea filed by ace tennis player Leander Paes to December 17. In the plea, he questioned the order of a metropolitan magistrate court which stated he was to pay ₹1.50 lakh every month to his estranged live-in partner, model-actor, Rhea Pillai.
The matter was adjourned after Rhea’s lawyers sought time to file a reply to the appeal filed by Paes, along with the application for condonation of delay 214 days in filing the appeal, stating that they had received copies of the appeal and the application on Thursday.
On their request, the court posted Paes’ application for condonation of delay for the hearing on December 17.
Acting on a complaint filed by Pillai invoking provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005, the magistrate court had on February 11 directed Paes to pay her monthly maintenance of ₹1 lakh and ₹50,000 towards house rent. She was also awarded an additional amount of ₹1 lakh towards litigation costs.
Brief history
Pillai, according to the magistrate court order, came in contact with the tennis player in October / November 2003 – two years after she started residing separately from her ex-husband, actor Sanjay Dutt. After dating for over a year, in 2005, Paes and Pillai started living together, though the earlier marriage of the model was in subsistence, and in 2006, the couple was blessed with a daughter. Pillai’s earlier marriage was formally dissolved only in 2008.
In the complaint, she claimed that after the birth of their daughter, the behaviour of Paes towards her changed and cracks started appearing in their relationship, and the intimacy was replaced by emotional violence.
She further alleged that Paes was having an illicit relationship with another woman in Singapore and that she was cheated on and betrayed at every juncture of their relationship, emotionally, physically and financially.
Paes had denied the allegations and questioned the maintainability of Pillai’s application under provisions of the DV Act, contending that the complaint was not maintainable, as her earlier marriage was still in subsistence when she started living with him and therefore not entitled to reliefs under the DV Act, since their relationship was not akin to marriage – a requirement of domestic relationship under the enactment.
The magistrate court had, however, rejected the objection, observing that Paes was very well aware of her pending divorce proceedings and her marital status when he entered into a relationship with Pillai, and in any case, continued the relationship even after her divorce in 2008.