3 min readMumbaiMar 3, 2025 08:31 PM IST
First published on: Mar 3, 2025 at 08:31 PM IST
A senior Maharashtra minister and NCP leader who was directed to pay an interim monthly maintenance of Rs 2 lakh to his estranged partner and their daughter, has challenged the order before a sessions court in Mumbai.
Last Friday, the minister sought a quashing of the order, saying he never married the woman and that the domestic relationship between them ceased to exist so a plea under the Domestic Violence Act can’t be filed. The woman’s lawyer submitted before the court she will not apply for execution of the interim maintenance order until the next hearing.
The woman, through her lawyer, sought time to file a reply. In her petition under the DV Act, the woman has alleged harassment by the minister and sought interim maintenance of Rs 5 lakh.
The court will hear the case next on March 21.
On February 4, a Bandra magistrate court partly allowed the woman’s plea, and ordered the interim maintenance, observing there is prima facie proof of domestic violence against the minister. The court said while the minister denied any marital relationship with the woman, there is prima facie documentary evidence, including his election affidavit, which mentions their two children as his dependents.
In the appeal heard before the sessions court Friday, the minister said he and the woman parted ways in 2018 and hence there does not exist any domestic relationship. The minister said the woman entered into a relationship with him, knowing he was married. He said he had mentioned in election affidavits the two children born to them as his children but they never shared a household.
He also claimed that in 2019, when he became a Maharashtra Cabinet minister, the woman and her family members underwent a “drastic change”. He alleged they began making repeated demands for money beyond his financial capacity, and that the domestic violence case was filed to “exact revenge”.
He also claimed while the woman said they had been married since 1998, no proof was given by her. He also claimed the court had not considered that there were contradictions in her income, as mentioned in his plea and before the Election Commission of India in an affidavit filed in 2022 when she contested the by-elections.