Mumbai: The Sessions Court has refused to accept Dhananjay Munde’s contention that his relationship with Karuna, his first wife, was not a marriage but, at most, a concubinage. While dismissing his appeal, the court stated that they were in a relationship akin to marriage and also held that irrespective of her income she is entitled to maintenance to match the lifestyle with that of Munde.
Last week, the court dismissed his plea challenging the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court that directed him to pay maintenance to Karuna and their two children. While rejecting his appeal, the court observed: “Prima facie, the respondent No.1 (Karuna) was in a relationship with the appellant (Dhananjay) in the nature of marriage. She has given birth to two children of the appellant, which would not be possible without residing in a shared household. Therefore, she is entitled to claim the reliefs provided under the D.V. Act.”
The court further remarked: “He is a well-known public figure and political leader. Hence, his financial capacity cannot be questioned, nor can it be compared with the earnings of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 and her children are entitled to the same lifestyle enjoyed by the appellant. Even if respondent No.1 is earning, she is still entitled to maintenance to sustain a lifestyle equal to the appellant’s.”
Munde had argued that he never married Karuna and has filed a suit against her, seeking damages for defamation and protection of his privacy, which is pending. He claimed that, as a counter to the said suit, Karuna filed the domestic violence application in 2022.
Munde further contended that Karuna was neither his wife nor in a live-in relationship with him akin to marriage. He insisted that they had never resided in a shared household, adding that Karuna could, at most, be termed a concubine and was not entitled to any relief. He further argued that Karuna had a sufficient source of income and had been submitting her Income Tax returns.
On the other hand, Karuna’s lawyers relied on the Vasiyatnama and Swikrutipatra executed by Munde. They contended that the Vasiyatnama appeared to be executed by the appellant in favor of Karuna and Rajshri Dhananjay Munde, wherein Karuna is referred to as the first wife. In the Swikrutipatra, Munde acknowledged Karuna as his first wife and stated that he performed a second marriage under pressure and would not divorce her.
The court, while referring to these documents, remarked that there was no evidence on record to show these were forged. “Unless specifically decided that these documents are forged and falsely prepared, the documents of Vasiyatnama and Swikrutipatra must be considered to draw an inference regarding the relationship between Munde and Karuna,” the court said, concluding that these documents confirmed the nature of their marriage.
As for maintenance, the court noted that the company in Karuna’s name was not active and is now closed, leaving her without income from that source. Furthermore, the court stated: “There cannot be a comparison between the earning capacities of Karuna and Munde. There is a significant disparity in their earning capacities.”
