Merely Because Live-In Relationship Is Unacceptable, Woman Can't Be Deprived Of Her Rights : Leander Paes Held Liable For Domestic Violence

Ruling that tennis star Leander Paes knew model and-Art of Living Instructor Rhea Pillai was married to Actor Sanjay Dutt when he started living-in with her in 2003-05, a Metropolitan Magistrate held their relationship to be 'in the nature of marriage' and declared Paes liable of causing economic and mental violence under the Domestic Violence Act.

"The consensual sexual relationship between married individual out of their relationship of marriage is not prohibited, except few exceptions…Merely because socially such a practice is unacceptable the Applicant can not be deprived of her rights," the court said and ordered Paes to pay Pillai Rs 1 lakh maintenance and Rs 50 thousand rent per month. Paes already bears all his daughter's expenses.

"Law must maintain its pace with requirements of changing patterns and changing norms of society. Such a change must be in tune with constitutional norms i.e. constitutional morality. It should not be governed by rigid societal standards incompatible with human rights and justice."

The court observed Paes was estopped or barred from questioning the legality of their relationship after establishing physical relations with Pillai, allowing her to conceive his child in 2006 and continuing the relationship even after her divorce with Dutt in 2008.

Therefore, "Acceptance of the Respondent's(Paes's) stand means accepting a claim of morality from a person who had followed immoral way to gain benefits."

Facts of the Case

Pillai separated from Dutt in 2000 and met Leander in 2003. After a brief courtship they began living with each other and birthed a child in 2006. Two years later, in 2008, Pillai's divorce from Dutt was finalized. Subsequently, Paes's father Vece and his partner started living with the couple at their new apartment in Jackers the same year. Differences arose and in February 2014 Paes filed a petition under the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 seeking his daughter's custody before the Family court.

That same year, in May, Pillai filed the present DV suit and Paes and his father.

Through her lawyers Mahesh Jethmalani and Amna Usman, Pillai claimed that avoidance and disrespect, attempts by Paes' father to dislodge her from the house, professionally hacking into her computer and rummaging through her belongings and cheating on her.

Paes on the other hand raised questions on maintainability of the plea and said their relationship was not akin to a domestic relationship as contemplated under section 2(f) of the Act. He accused Pillai of fraud and causing him financial losses. He denied knowing that she is still married to Dutt while living with him. He argued that she was is not faithful to him and lead an irresponsible and wayward life. Moreover, she had got enough from her divorce from Dutt.

Court

The court held that since Pillai succeeded in proving all allegations constituting emotional and economic violence, the burden shifted on Paes's shoulders to prove his defence which he failed to do.

The court observed where allegations of adultery are concerned, persons in a live-in relationship stand on a weaker footing and don't have such strong rights as that of married person.

"Before entering into such relationship they should prepare themselves for facing consequences and get ready for the situation where they may not have defences or privileges available to the married couple. Therefore, even if it is presumed that Applicant (Pillai) was leading an adulterous life it cannot absolve the Respondent(Paes) of his liability to maintain her."

It is proved that Respondent caused various acts of domestic violence.

Till the time the petition was decided, Paes and his father were living on rent while Pillai was staying in their Jackers apartment with their daughter. The court observed that Paes's career as a tennis player is almost over. Moreover, he was also bearing all the expenses of his daughter Aiyana.

Therefore, in order to "balance the rights of both the parties", Pillai's "maintenance needs to be conditioned by leaving of house of the Respondent i.e. Jackers."

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment