Anita Advani loses Supreme Court bid over Rajesh Khanna relationship

The Supreme Court on Thursday, October 29, 2026 refused to hear actor Anita Advani's appeal seeking to have her relationship with the late film star Rajesh Khanna recognised as a marriage. A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale declined to interfere with the Bombay High Court's April 1, 2026 decision against her and described the case as "luxury litigation". Her lawyer had argued that the declaration she sought was a matter of dignity for her.

India has no separate law for live-in relationships. Couples who live together without marrying are protected mainly through the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which covers women in a "domestic relationship", including a relationship "in the nature of marriage". This wording matters because it decides whether a woman can claim maintenance, a right to residence or protection orders against a partner.

Courts have set limits on what that phrase covers. As the Bombay High Court explained in this case, a relationship that begins while one partner is still legally married to someone else does not meet the test, however long the couple stay together. In Advani's case, Khanna had never divorced Dimple Kapadia, so the court found the relationship could not count as marriage-like in law. The High Court also noted that Advani had not shared a household with Kapadia and her family, which was another reason the domestic violence law did not apply.

For families, the ruling shows the legal gap between living together and being married. A wife has clear rights in law to maintenance, inheritance and the marital home. A partner in a long relationship with a married person may have very few, even if the relationship was widely known. In such disputes it is usually the woman who seeks protection, as Advani did, after losing a home or support when the relationship ends or the partner dies.

The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the appeal does not create a new rule. It leaves the High Court's reasoning in place, so the existing law stays as it was. The bench's "luxury litigation" remark indicated that it did not see the appeal as raising a question it needed to decide.

Short-term: The case ends Advani's attempt to be legally recognised as Rajesh Khanna's partner in the nature of marriage, since the Supreme Court has refused to take it up.

Long-term: The outcome adds weight to the courts' view that a relationship with a person who is still married does not carry the protection that marriage-like live-in relationships get under the domestic violence law.

Who is affected: Women in long-term relationships with married men, couples in live-in relationships who rely on the domestic violence law for protection, and families dealing with claims over a partner's home or estate.

Questions and Answers