Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Dismisses Anita Advani’s Bid to Recognise Rajesh Khanna Relationship as Marriage
By Drooid · · How we work
In this breakdown
01
Core Decision
On a Thursday hearing in October 2026, a two-judge bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale rejected former actress Anita Advani’s petition seeking a declaration that her long-term relationship with the late Bollywood star Rajesh Khanna should be treated as a marriage. The bench called the matter “luxury litigation” and found no legal ground to overturn the Bombay High Court’s April 1, 2026 order that had upheld the lower-court dismissal.
02
Background & Context
Advani, who appeared in *Saazish* and *Daasi*, claimed she lived with Khanna for several years in his Mumbai bungalow “Aashirwad” and presented the partnership as a de-facto marriage. After Khanna’s death in July 2012, she filed a civil suit for recognition as his widow and maintenance, including a three-bedroom flat in Bandra. The suit was rejected by the Dindoshi sessions court in 2017.
In 2013 she lodged a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against Khanna’s estranged wife Dimple Kapadia, their daughter Twinkle Khanna and son-in-law Akshay Kumar, alleging forced eviction and seeking maintenance. The Bombay High Court quashed that complaint in 2015, holding that Advani’s relationship did not qualify as “in the nature of marriage” for the domestic-violence law.
The High Court’s April 1, 2026 judgment reiterated that Khanna’s marriage to Kapadia, solemnised in 1973 and never dissolved, remained subsisting at the time of his death, barring Advani’s claim to widowhood.
Visual evidence
Images from the story
03
Timeline
- July 18, 2012 – Rajesh Khanna dies at age 69.
- 2013 – Advani files a domestic-violence complaint.
- 2015 – Bombay High Court quashes the complaint.
- 2017 – Dindoshi sessions court rejects Advani’s civil suit.
- April 1, 2026 – Bombay High Court dismisses Advani’s appeal.
- October 2026 – Supreme Court rejects Advani’s petition.
04
Legal Reasoning & Official Statements
The bench relied on *D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal*, which requires parties seeking recognition of a live-in relationship as equivalent to marriage to satisfy the essential conditions for a valid marriage, including the legal capacity to marry. The court noted that Khanna remained legally married to Kapadia, so Advani could not meet the “unmarried” prerequisite.
05
Verbatim Quotes
- “I am seeking dignity. At the end of the day, my prayer in my civil suit which is for this declaration, is premised on some sense of dignity.” — Anita Advani
06
Implications
The dismissal reaffirms the stringent standards applied to claims that a live-in partnership be treated as a marriage for inheritance, maintenance or widowhood. It underscores that a subsisting legal marriage precludes recognition of a parallel relationship, even where the parties cohabited and presented themselves socially as a couple.
07
What's Next
No further appeal has been announced. The Supreme Court’s decision closes the multi-year litigation, leaving Advani without legal recognition of the relationship or any entitlement to maintenance or widow’s benefits.