Mumbai: Earlier this month, a metropolitan magistrate court passed its order in the domestic violence case filed by model-actor Rhea Pillai against her former partner, tennis player Leander Paes, stating that he had ’caused various acts of domestic violence.’
The court’s order is conditional giving Pillai a choice to leave their shared residence, with directions to Paes to pay a monthly rent of Rs 50,000, apart from monthly maintenance of Rs 1 lakh, to her. The court has said that if she chooses to continue living in the residence, she will not be entitled to monetary relief. It said that with Paes’ career in tennis ‘almost over, it would cause ‘serious prejudice’ to order him to live in a rented home while also paying maintenance to Pilli.
The court also directed Paes to pay an additional amount of Rs 1 lakh towards legal costs and expenses, while continuing to pay expenses of maintenance, education and other necessities of their daughter. It rejected prayers of Pillai seeking payment of past maintenance and partition of their shared residence, located in the western suburbs of Mumbai.
The court’s order came over seven years after Pillai, through lawyers Mahesh Jethmalani and Amna Usman, had filed proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, naming Paes and his father Vace Paes as respondents. Pillai had claimed that she and Paes were in a relationship since 2003, they were living together since 2005-06 and had a child in 2006.
It was claimed that they then shifted to a house in Bandra, and Paes’ father too shifted with them. Subsequently, differences arose between them. Paes filed an application before the Family Court in Bandra seeking custody of his daughter. Following this, Pillai filed a plea in the court under the Act in 2014, alleging that she was subjected to domestic violence by Paes.
“Considering the facts admitted by the Respondent (Paes)…it can be said that the Applicant (Pillai) succeeded in proving all allegations constituting emotional and economic violence and then burden shifts on the shoulders of Respondent to prove counter i.e. his stance/defence. But if we perused either cross-examination of the Applicant from his side or his evidence affidavit there is nothing in it, on the basis of which it cannot be said that Respondent succeeded in proving his defence,” Metropolitan Magistrate Komalsing Rajput said in the order.
The court took into account submissions made by Pillai alleging domestic violence through various means, including ‘economic violence’ for being made to bear all expenses despite his earnings.
The court dealt with aspects including the contention made by Paes, represented by his lawyers George Cheriyan and Uttam Cheriyan, that the plea filed by Pillai was not maintainable under the Act since she was still married when they began living together and only got divorced from her previous marriage in 2008. He had claimed that he was unaware of her marital status.
Pillai had countered this by stating that he was aware of the fact that she was separated from her then-husband actor Sanjay Dutt, and divorce proceedings remained to be completed due to a pending trial against Dutt and the death of his father.
The court said it was difficult to believe that Paes was unaware of the status of the first marriage of Pillai, given that he had ‘roamed internationally’ and was ‘acclaimed belonging to the elite class.’
It also did not agree with Paes’ contention that the divorce between Pillai and Dutt was not valid. It said that even though Pillai was still married legally when she began living with Paes, the fact of ‘existence of relationship beyond marriage is undeniable’.
“The allegations of the Applicant prima facie constitutes domestic violence and as such, it can be said that the relationship is a relationship in the nature of marriage,” the court said.
It said that the Act is a beneficial legislation, its provisions are to ‘be interpreted liberally in larger interest to benefit women in distress to address the issue of domestic violence.’
The court said that it was taking into account that Pillai came from a ‘sound background’, has a home and two companies and that Paes was living in a rented space.
“Respondent possesses no house. They are residing outside in a rented house. His career as a tennis player is almost over. He is also bearing all the expenses of his daughter. If such a situation is allowed to continue, it will definitely cause serious prejudice to the respondent. It cannot be ordered that Respondent shall remain outside by depriving himself of every resource and only pay the maintenance to the Applicant,” stated the court while directing Pillai to vacate the shared residence, stating that it was balancing the rights of both parties.