Mumbai: In the case of a city cardiologist allegedly forging documents to obtain a pension as the widow of former deputy chief minister Ramrao Adik, the sessions court has directed the Marine Drive police to not arrest the doctor, Dr Lekha Pathak, until further hearing as prosecution has sought time to submit its reply to her anticipatory bail plea.
The case against Pathak was lodged following an order from the metropolitan magistrate court, which was hearing a complaint filed by Adik’s son, Prithviraj. He alleged that Pathak submitted documents to the ministry despite a prior settlement between them.
Prithviraj claimed that after his father’s demise in August 2007, Pathak began receiving pension as his widow, even though she was never legally married to him. Fearing arrest, she filed an anticipatory bail application before the sessions court on Saturday.
The plea was heard on Monday, during which the police requested a short time to submit their response. The hearing has now been scheduled for June 12.
Meanwhile, in her plea, Pathak claimed that Adik and his first wife, Shobha, had signed a divorce deed in June 1989, a copy of which she has already submitted to the court. Furthermore, she asserted that she and Adik were married in 1995, in accordance with Hindu Vedic rites at Birla Temple in New Delhi.
Pathak also emphasised that Adik passed away, leaving behind his last will, signed on December 24, 2006. Testamentary proceedings were initiated before the Bombay High Court, where all legal heirs, including Pathak, Shobha, and Adik’s children from his first marriage, arrived at a consent agreement regarding the distribution of funds from his bank accounts.
She further claimed that several years after these proceedings, the last will is now being questioned, despite none of the legal heirs challenging the high court proceedings at the time.
Pathak has accused the complainants of suppressing key facts and obtaining an adverse order against her from the magistrate court. She has also alleged that the case was filed because they failed to “extort” money from her during the testamentary proceedings.
