MUMBAI, April 2 -- The Bombay high court on Wednesday dismissed a plea filed by actor Anita Advani seeking recognition of her relationship with the late superstar Rajesh Khanna as one that was "in the nature of marriage" and thereby seeking the title of his "widow". Rejecting Advani' s plea against Khanna's estranged wife Dimple Kapadia, daughter Twinkle Khanna and son-in-law Akshay Kumar, a single-judge bench of Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh held that such a status could not be granted when the deceased actor's marriage with his legally wedded wife, Kapadia, was "subsisting" (not dissolved by divorce, annulment or death of one of the spouses). "The requirement that the parties must be qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried, is clearly not satisfied in the present case," the bench observed while upholding the rejection of Advani's suit by the Dindoshi civil court. Advani had filed the civil suit in 2015, seeking a declaration that she was in a relationship with Khanna "in the nature of a marriage" and therefore should be recognised as his widow. Kapadia and others had sought rejection of the suit, claiming that such a declaration went against the Hindu Marriage Act, 1950. On July 15, 2017, the Dindoshi court allowed their objection and rejected the suit, holding that Advani's plea was barred by law, mainly on the ground that the marriage between Khanna and Kapadia was subsisting when he passed away, and under the Hindu Marriage Act, there can be no valid marriage if one of the parties has a spouse living. Advani then moved the Bombay high court in 2025. She highlighted that Khanna was living apart from his legally wedded wife after the marriage between them broke down in 1984. Advani claimed to have been living under one roof with Khanna for years and her petition said that both had projected to society at large about their relationship being in the nature of a marriage. The actor further submitted that she had also advanced financial help to Khanna for renovating their premises when they were living together in his house. "The relationship between me and Khanna was thus monogamous in character," said her petition. Kapadia, on the other hand, contended that Khanna had a subsisting marriage with her, and therefore, no such declaration could be sought. Relying on Supreme Court rulings on live-in relationships, the high court observed that one of the essential ingredients for recognising a relationship as being "in the nature of marriage" was that both the parties had to be "legally capable" of marrying each other. Since Khanna's marriage with Kapadia was subsisting, the condition could not be fulfilled, the court said. "No fruitful purpose would be served by going ahead with the matter for evidence," the court noted, adding that it would be futile to permit the suit to proceed for trial and unnecessarily protract the proceedings, which was precisely what had been done by the trial court. "In light of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and therefore, it stands dismissed," the bench concluded....