Except For Certain Instances, It Is Not Illegal For Married People To Have Consensual Relationships Outside Of Their Wedding: Rhea Laila Pillai V Leander Adrian Peas And Vece Peas

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
11/02/2022

BENCH:
JUSTICE MS. KOMALSING RAJPUT

PARTIES:
PETITIONER: RHEA LAILA PILLAI
RESPONDENT: LEANDER ADRIAND PEAS AND LEANDER ADRIAN PEAS

SUBJECT

Except for a few instances, it is not illegal for married people to have consensual relationships outside of their wedding and the Claimant's rights cannot be taken away simply because such a practise is socially inappropriate

OVERVIEW

1. Rhea Pillai divorced Actor Sanjay Dutt in 2000 and began a relationship with Leander Peas in 2003. They started living together after a short affair and gave birth to a child in 2006.
2. Rhea Pillai's separation from Dutt was formalised 2 years later, in 2008 and in the following year, Leander Paes' dad Vece and his companion moved in with the pair at their new flat in Jackers.
3. After a couple of years, the couple slowly drifted apart due to the number of differences going between them, and in February 2014, Leander Paes appealed to the Family Court for the custody of his child under the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890.
4. In May of that year, Pillai initiated the current DV action against Paes and his dad. Pillai alleged that Paes' father tried to evict her from the residence, by deliberately breaking into her laptop and digging around her personal and professional items and cheated on her through her advocates, Mahesh Jethmalani and Amna Usman.
5. Leander Paes, on the other side, questioned the plea's maintainability, claiming that their connection was not comparable to a domestic relationship as defined by section 2(f) of the Act. He charged Rhea Pillai of defrauding him and leading him to lose money.
6. While residing with him, she denied any knowledge that she was still wedded to Sanjay Dutt. He said she was unfaithful to him and lived a reckless and carefree lifestyle.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890, section 2(f) of Guardianship and Wards act, 1890

ISSUES

Whether Leander peas be held for the domestic violence done against Rhea pillai?

JUDGEMENT

1. The magistrate court determined that because Rhea Pillai was successful in demonstrating all charges of personal and financial violence, the burden of proof moved to Paes, who was unable to discharge his burden.
2. The court stated that people in a live-in relationship are on a poorer footing and do not have the same rights as wedded people when it comes to claims of infidelity.
3. Before engaging into such a relationship, individuals had to brace themselves for the possibility of suffering repercussions and for a circumstance in which they might not have the same defences or rights as a husband and wife.
4. As a result, even if it is assumed that the appellant Rhea Pillai was living an unfaithful life, the respondent Leander Paes was nonetheless liable to support her. It had been established that the defendant was the perpetrator of multiple instances of domestic abuse.
5. Paes and his father were sleeping in the streets until the appeal was resolved, while Pillai and their daughter stayed in their Jackers home.
6. Paes' time as a tennis player was coming to an end, according to the court. In addition, he had footed the bill for his daughter Aiyana.
7. As a result, Pillai's maintenance had to be predicated by the defendant which meant that Jackers was vacating his house to balance the interests of both parties.
8. Metropolitan Magistrate noted in his statement that tennis player Leander Paes understood exactly that model and art of living instructor Rhea Pillai was married to actor Sanjay Dutt when he began living with her in 2003-05, and that their relationship was in the meaning of marriage, and that Paes was subject to liability under the Domestic Violence Act for causing massive financial and mental health related issues.
9. Except for a few circumstances, it was not illegal for married people to have consensual sexual relationships outside of their marriage.
10. The Petitioner's rights cannot be taken away simply since such a behaviour was socially inappropriate Leander Paes was required to pay Rhea Pillai Rs 1 lakh in maintenance and Rs 50 thousand in rent every month, according to the court.
11. Leander Paes was already covering all his daughter's costs as well.

CONCLUSION

After having intimate relations with Rhea Pillai, enabling her to carry his kid in 2006, and maintaining the connection even after her separation from Dutt in 2008, the court stated that Leander Paes was estopped or forbidden from questioning the validity of their affair. As a result, the court ruled that one should recognize the Respondent's position and must entail after acknowledging a statement of virtue from an individual who obtained advantages in an unethical manner.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement