SC refuses to consider woman's plea to live with RS MP

In a peculiar case of an octogenarian MP living with two women for over four decades, the Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to consider a plea by one of the women against a Delhi High Court's order that directed her to live separately from him, saying there is “some cloud” on her status as his wife.

A bench of Justices R Banumathi, A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy asked the 66-year-old woman-petitioner to approach the Delhi High Court, which had already granted her liberty, to file a plea in case of any difficulty.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the woman, contended the Delhi High Court had followed “completely illegal procedure”, while entertaining the habeas corpus petition of the estranged son of the MP from the other woman, and on September 20 ordered her separation from the husband with whom she had lived for the last 45 years at his official residence.

“Who is the court to say husband and wife should not live together? Why should they live separately, until there is democracy in the country. I am troubled by a number of directions. The HC had directed the seven-time MP undergo mental assessment,” he asked.

“How could police investigation be ordered and for what purpose? The petition before the HC is a device to grab the properties which run into thousand of crores. The MP is promoter of a pharmaceutical company,” he added.

The top court, however, pointed out that the high court had examined all the parties including the mother of the petitioner. “This arrangement is for four weeks. You have lived as husband and wife but there is some cloud in view of your own statements,” the bench said.

“This lady is acknowledged as wife in diplomatic passport and record of Parliament. Even if they are not husband and wife, who is HC to separate them? Where should she go? Whether wife or otherwise. Should she check in some hotel? They have been all living together,” he responded.

The bench, however, said while considering the habeas corpus petition it is true that with the production of the person concerned, the purpose is achieved but still “some incidental directions” can be issued by the court.

The woman-petitioner contended the MP suffered from various age-related medical issues and required constant care and attention and she was the sole care giver.

During the proceedings before the high court, the MP and the other wife had appeared and submitted that there was no any case of confinement or physical abuse but still she was also directed to be moved away from the official residence and all access to her by the family members was denied, she said.