Exclusive - Smita Bharadwaj seeks help of the court for sale of Nitish Bharadwaj’s property

With each passing day, the divorce and separation between Smita Bharadwaj and her husband Nitish Bharadwaj is becoming increasingly complicated. Nitish Bharadwaj had recently filed a police complaint against his estranged wife, Smita, alleging mental abuse. Nitish seems to have accused his wife of harassment, citing instances where she allegedly prevented him from meeting their children. Smita firmly refuted accusations of kidnapping their daughters as "baseless and malicious". She, who is serving as the Additional Chief Secretary in Bhopal, is entangled in a legal battle with the actor, renowned for his portrayal of Lord Krishna in Mahabharat, in a pending case within the family court system.

Now, Smita Bharadwaj has sought the help of the court for the sale of her husband Nitish Bharadwaj’s property. According to a source, "Smita Bharadwaj has filed an execution application commonly known as darkhast for recovery of the sum of ₹10,000 per month for each daughter as per the commitment made by Nitish Bharadwaj to the honourable court. ‘’




The source added, "The commitment is duly recorded by the court on the basis of which an interim order has been passed.’’

Smita has sought the help from the court to attach movable property and sale of Nitish Bharadwaj’s houseold goods so that she can use the money for the maintenance of her children.’’

When contacted, Smita Bharadwaj’s lawyer Chinmay Vaidya refused to divulge information and said, "All I can say is that a darkhast has been filed in the family court and as the case is subjudice I cant comment on the same."

Earlier in an interview, Smita had shared that Nitish has been pressurising her for money, she said, "He's pressuring me for money, dangling the idea that if I quit my job, our marriage can continue, or else I must pay for a divorce. He's been secretly recording our conversations since 2016, a revelation that blindsided us. He believes our joint apartment in Pune could jeopardize his assets due to an ongoing legal case with Prasar Bharti. To safeguard his personal interests, he's insisted the property be solely in my name. I have made my own contributions towards its purchase, which he now wants to claim. And assets owned by me. His demands for reimbursement, even for trivial expenses like milk, highlight his unreasonable behaviour. Despite my efforts to maintain stability and provide for our children, he continues to manipulate situations to his advantage."