Paes vs Pillai: Court condones tennis star’s delay in appealing against maintenance order

Paes approached the sessions court on October 17, last year pleading to condone the delay of seven months in filing the appeal against the order of the magistrate court. The court on Monday condoned the delay, subject to payment of ₹20,000 to Pillai. The court said, only after the payment of the cost, Paes’s appeal would be registered

MUMBAI: The sessions court on Monday condoned the delay on part of tennis star Leander Paes in filing an appeal, challenging the order of a metropolitan magistrate court directing him to pay his estranged live-in partner Rhea Pillai, model-actor, a monthly maintenance of ₹1 lakh.

Leander Paes with live-in parter Rhea Pillai at Riteish, Genelia's wedding.

Paes approached the sessions court on October 17, last year pleading to condone the delay of seven months in filing the appeal against the order of the magistrate court. The court on Monday condoned the delay, subject to payment of ₹20,000 to Pillai. The court said, only after the payment of the cost, Paes’s appeal would be registered.

Acting on a complaint filed by Pillai invoking provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005, the magistrate court had on February 11 directed Paes to pay her monthly maintenance of ₹1 lakh and ₹50,000 towards house rent. She was also awarded additional amount of ₹1 lakh towards litigation cost.

Under section 29 of the DV Act, an appeal is required to be filed before the sessions court for challenging the magistrate court orders and the appeals filed with delay are heard by sessions court, only if the delay is condoned.

In this case, Leander had, however, filed the appeal 214 days after the appeal period was over. He was therefore required to file an application for condonation of the delay, which the court allowed on Monday, paving the way for hearing of his appeal on merits.

Rhea, according to the magistrate court order, came in contact with the tennis player in October/November 2003 — two years after she started residing separately from her ex-husband, actor Sanjay Dutt.

After dating for over a year, in 2005, Paes and Pillai started living together, though earlier marriage of the actor/model was in subsistence, and in 2006, the couple had a daughter. Pillai’s earlier marriage was formally dissolved only in 2008.

In her DV complaint, she claimed that after the birth of their daughter, Paes’s behaviour towards her changed. She alleged that cracks started appearing in their relationship, and intimacy was replaced by emotional violence.

She further alleged that Paes was involved in an illicit relationship with another woman in Singapore and constantly travelled and stayed there. She claimed that she was cheated upon and betrayed by him at every juncture of their relationship, emotionally, physically and financially.

Paes had denied the allegations and questioned the maintainability of Pillai’s application under the provisions of the DV Act.

He had contended that the complaint was not maintainable, as her earlier marriage was still in subsistence when she started living with him. He had claimed that she was not entitled to reliefs under the DV Act, as their relationship was not akin to a marriage – a requirement of domestic relationship under the enactment.

The magistrate court had, however, rejected the objection, observing that Paes was very well aware of her pending divorce proceedings and her marital status when he entered into relationship with Pillai, and in any case, continued the relationship even after her divorce in 2008.