Bombay High Court Rejects Anita Advani's Bid for Widow Status of Rajesh Khanna
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal filed by Anita Advani, who sought legal recognition of her long-term relationship with the late Bollywood icon Rajesh Khanna as a marriage. Justice Sharmila Deshmukh presided over the case, delivering a verdict that underscores the stringent legal criteria required for such declarations.
Court's Rationale and Legal Tests
The court observed that Advani's primary plea was to be declared the widow of Rajesh Khanna, a status inherently linked to marriage. However, Justice Deshmukh ruled that the relationship between Advani and Khanna did not satisfy the essential tests formulated by the Supreme Court for recognizing a live-in relationship as equivalent to marriage. The judgment emphasized that for a live-in relationship to be deemed a marriage, it must cumulatively meet specific legal standards, including the parties being otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage.
Key among these requirements is that both individuals must be unmarried, a condition not met in this case as Rajesh Khanna was still legally married to his estranged wife, actor Dimple Khanna, at the time of his death in 2012. The court noted that under the Hindu Marriage Act, a marriage cannot exist if one party has a living spouse, thereby invalidating Advani's claim.
Background of the Legal Battle
The legal dispute traces back to Rajesh Khanna's demise, after which Advani and members of his family became embroiled in a protracted court battle. In 2015, Advani filed a suit in the Dindoshi city civil court against Dimple Khanna, her daughter Twinkle Khanna, and son-in-law Rajiv Bhatia (actor Akshay Kumar), seeking a declaration that her relationship with Khanna was akin to marriage. When this plea was rejected in 2017, she appealed to the Bombay High Court.
The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that proceeding with a civil trial would serve no fruitful purpose and would unnecessarily prolong proceedings by requiring depositions from Khanna's family members and others. The court elaborated that "the declaration seeks equivalence with marriage and marital relationship and must therefore also satisfy the essential tests for valid marriage although not formally married."
Live-In Relationship vs. Marriage
While the concept of a live-in relationship is legally recognized under the Domestic Violence Act, which defines it as a domestic relationship through a relationship in the nature of marriage, the High Court clarified that this does not automatically confer marital status. The court referenced the Supreme Court's guidelines in the case of D Velusamy vs D Patchaiammal, stressing that even monogamous live-in relationships must meet established tests, which were lacking here.
Ultimately, the court found no merit in Advani's appeal and dismissed it, affirming that the relationship had the "character of a live-in relationship" but did not qualify as a marriage under Indian law.
