In live-in relationship, women always at receiving end: Mumbai court orders Leander Paes to pay ₹1.5 lakh maintenance to Rhea Pillai

In a domestic violence case brought by model-actor Rhea Pillai against her former live-in partner, tennis player Leander Paes, a metropolitan magistrate court in Mumbai held that Paes had "caused various acts of domestic violence." .Judicial Magistrate First Class Komalsing Rajput, therefore, ordered the Olympic medalist tennis star to pay ₹1.5 lakh per month to Pillai.Pertinently, the Court in its judgment noted the difficulties faced by women from society and from a legal standpoint, when they enter into live-in relationships."Sexual relationship beyond the ties of marriage is not widely accepted even today also. It’s existence across societies is not in dispute. Several times it posed situations leading to conflict between law and morality. Such relationship put parties into peril. Particularly, a female partner, is always at the receiving end. A patriarchal society caused various injustices to a female partners involved in such relationships beyond marriage. The available legal measures for such female partner are also found to be inadequate resulting in her exploitation and abuse," the Court said.The judgement came seven years after Pillai, represented by Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani and Amna Usman, filed a suit under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (Domestic Violence Act or DV Act) against Paes and his father, Vace Paes. Pillai said that she and Paes had been dating since 2003, that they lived together from 2005 to 2006, and that they had a child in 2006.It was said that they later relocated to Bandra, where Paes' father joined them. As a result, tensions between them arose. Paes applied to the Family Court in Bandra for custody of his daughter. Following this, Pillai filed a court lawsuit under the Act in 2014, alleging that Paes had abused her. .A patriarchal society caused various injustices to a female partners involved in such relationships beyond marriage.Mumbai court .The Court held that Pillai had succeeded in proving her allegations and the burden to prove his stance rested upon Paes' shoulders. The court then found nothing in his affidavit to prove his stance..Pillai's accusations of domestic violence, including 'economic violence' for being compelled to fund all expenses, were confirmed by the court..Paes, via his attorneys, advocates George Cheriyan and Uttam Cheriyan, contended that Pillai's petition was invalid because she was married when they started dating and only divorced in 2008. He even claimed he had no knowledge of her marital status.Pillai denied this accusation, claiming that Leander was aware of her marital status and that her divorce process with actor Sanjay Dutt got delayed due to his pending trial in Mumbai serial bombing case as well as the death of his father, Sunil Dutt..The judge, was skeptical that Paes was uninformed of Pillai's marital status. Regarding his claim that the plea was not maintainable, the Court ruled that, while Pillai was still legally married when she began living with Paes, the presence of a relationship beyond marriage was apparent..“The allegations of the Applicant prima facie constitutes domestic violence and as such it can be said that the relationship is relationship in the nature of marriage,” the court said."The D.V. Act is a beneficial legislation, its provisions needs to be interpreted liberally in larger interest to benefit the women in distress to address the issue of domestic violence. It is not a penal statute which can be interpreted strictly.", the court further noted..After taking into account that Pillai came from a sound background and owned a house whereas Paes was living in a rented space, the court directed Pillai to vacate the house in an attempt at balancing the rights of both the parties.."Respondent possesses no house. They are residing outside in a rented house. His career as tennis player is almost over. He is also bearing all the expenses of 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 resources and only pay the maintenance to the applicant,", the Court said..Therefore, the Court found it appropriate to direct the tennis player to pay a monthly rent of ₹50,000 along with monthly maintenance of ₹1 lakh to Pillai..The Court also ordered Paes to pay an additional amount of ₹1 lakh in legal fees and expenditures, while continuing to pay for their daughter's sustenance, education, and other essentials. It, however, denied Pillai's request for payment of previous maintenance and partition of their shared house.