Did Peter and Indrani Mukerjea’s relationship sour over time? Email exchanges between the two suggest so, with Peter’s first marriage to Shabnam and their sons a major point of contention.
An email from Indrani to Peter on November 15, 2014 starts: “I am writing this mail to you to get a few things off my chest. I do not believe that sweeping it under the carpet will resolve anything. With time I am realize (sic) that I am finding it more and more difficult to speak my mind or heart in front of you as it does not end well in certain matters particularly.”
In her email, Indrani said she was upset that Rabin, Peter’s elder son, felt she was “unkind” to her family. In the one and a half page email, she went on to write that Rahul had, on more than one occasion, made it clear with “shameful abuses” that she was to stay out of his life.
Towards the end of the mail, Indrani said that she wanted Vidhie’s name to be added to Sneyd Park and Malambo, properties that Indrani and Peter jointly hold abroad, when she turned 18.
The last paragraph of Indrani’s email revealed the strongest hint of discord in their marriage.
“Last but not the least. I leave it to you to plan your 60th. Don’t want to be your travel agent, rather enjoy a good break or a dinner whatever you decide and leave the dirty work to you :). Just no unpleasant surprises. Please!”
Peter, who seemingly took time to reply, tried to pacify Indrani over her issues with Rabin.
He wrote, “See it did sound like that and maybe your’e (sic ) right that he has formed that opinion. I agree with you that is incorrect for Rabin to do and I think that is probably because he doesn’t have the full picture and hears it all from his mother or perhaps from Rahul too.”
On Vidhie’s name being added to the properties, Peter wrote, “I agree but with the usual covenants of course that she cannot opt to sell her share unless we both agree... I’m sure it won’t come to that but jic (just in case).”
Indrani replied to Peter’s email on November 17, 2014, saying that she felt that the covenants to properties would be unnecessary. However, she was on the defensive, clarifying that she was not “needling” him.
“I don’t think those covenants in the other properties are required as she will only be a one third owner... Did you put any of those covenants when you bought property in names with Rabin or with initially added Rahul to your Berkhamstead property. Please don’t think I am needling you.”
“I am only asking because this is the first time I am adding a young person to a property whereas you have done it earlier in case of your children and you know better. For number 18, I had put strict covenants only because it is her sole name,” she wrote.