The Bombay High Court has upheld a previous ruling, dismissing actor Anita Advani’s appeal that sought legal recognition of her relationship with late superstar Rajesh Khanna as a marriage. This pivotal decision by Justice Sharmila Deshmukh reinforces an earlier Dindoshi civil court order from 2017, which had initially rejected Advani’s suit on technical grounds.
Key Legal Development
The court's dismissal came after hearing arguments from counsel representing Advani, as well as lawyers for Dimple Kapadia, Akshay Kumar, and Twinkle Khanna. The High Court declined to grant relief, simply stating, “First appeal is dismissed.” A detailed copy of the judgment is anticipated, which is expected to provide further clarity on the ruling.
A Long-Running Legal Dispute
This legal development is part of a series of protracted proceedings that began after Rajesh Khanna’s death in 2012. Anita Advani has consistently maintained that her relationship with the iconic actor qualified as one “in the nature of marriage,” and she has sought official recognition of this status through various civil proceedings.
Previous Related Litigation
• Eviction Claims: Advani's claims also include allegations of being evicted from Khanna’s bungalow, Aashirwad, following his passing. This adds another layer to the complex legal dispute.
• Domestic Violence Complaint: In a separate but connected legal action, Advani had filed a criminal complaint alleging domestic violence against Dimple Kapadia, Akshay Kumar, and Twinkle Khanna before a Magistrate court. However, a coordinate bench of the Bombay High Court quashed these proceedings in 2015.
• Definition of Relationship: During the 2015 ruling, the court explicitly held that Advani’s relationship with Rajesh Khanna did not qualify as one “in the nature of marriage” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
This latest order marks another significant step in the ongoing legal battle surrounding claims related to Rajesh Khanna’s personal relationship status and associated rights. The awaited detailed judgment will offer deeper insights into the court’s rationale.
