In relief for Anita Advani - who claimed to be the live-in partner of late superstar Rajesh Khanna - the Bombay High Court has directed that documents pertaining to Khanna's will related proceedings be provided to Advani. Justice R D Dhanuka, while dismissing a challenge filed by Khanna's elder daughter Twinkle, observed that no right was being created in favour of Advani and only the documents were being provided at this stage.

The court further restricted Advani from using the documents for any purpose other than that stated by her, and has directed her to not give them to anyone else. Advani had stated that she intends to challenge the ratification of Khanna's will by the high court in favour of Khanna's daughter, reports The Times of India.

Khanna died on July 2012 after prolonged illness a month after he made a will, which ratified by the High Court in October that year. The court, while allowing that Advani be given the documents, observed that if Advani finally challenges the will-related proceedings, the Khanna family will get a chance to defend themselves, therefore there was no problem in providing her with a copy of the documents.

Twinkle had challenged the order passed in February this year by the HC's Commissioner for Taking Accounts. On Twinkle's behalf, senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas and advocate Birendra Saraf had submitted that the concerned authority should have issued notices to the family members before passing an order in Advani's favour.

Justice Dhanuka, however, ruled that the provision under which the copies of documents were sought did not bind the concerned authority to issue a notice to the family. The authority only had to be satisfied there was tangible reason for seeking the papers.

Advocate Manohar Shetty, representing Advani, submitted that she was a live-in partner of Khanna and that Khanna had told her on various occasions that she would be a beneficiary in his will. He alleged that family members had indulged in fraud related to the will.

After the judgment, Saraf sought a stay, saying the family intended to "take the matter further". Shetty submitted the family was already in the process of disposing off assets acquired through the will. Justice Dhanuka then turned down Saraf's request for a stay.