Actress Celina Jaitly has demands Rs 100 crore compensation and Rs 10 lakh per month maintenance from husband Peter Haag in a domestic violence case filed in Mumbai. The court has asked both parties to submit income affidavits and adjourned the matter to January 27, 2026.
Celina Jaitly Demands 100 crore: Actress Celina Jaitly Haag has approached a Mumbai court seeking Rs 100 crore as compensation and Rs 10 lakh per month as maintenance from her estranged husband, Austrian national Peter Haag, in a domestic violence case. The matter came up for hearing before the Court of SC Tadye, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Andheri, Mumbai.
On December 12, 2025, the Mumbai court adjourned the case to January 27, 2026. The court granted time to both parties to file their income affidavits and also allowed Peter Haag time to submit his formal reply to the complaint. After these filings are completed, the court will hear both sides.
The domestic violence case filed against Peter Haag was heard when he appeared through his counsel. This was the first appearance of both parties after Celina Jaitly filed the complaint in November. The court has now directed both sides to place their detailed financial disclosures on record by January 27.
Peter Haag has also been instructed to file his reply to the allegations, marking the beginning of what is expected to be a long and emotionally difficult legal battle.
As reported by Hindustan Times, Celina Jaitly, represented by Karanjawala & Company, has made serious allegations of physical, verbal and emotional abuse during their 15-year marriage. The couple married in Mumbai in 2010 and later lived across multiple locations including Mumbai, Dubai, Singapore and Austria, due to Peter Haag’s professional commitments abroad.
In her petition, Celina Jaitly has sought Rs 100 crore in compensation along with Rs 10 lakh per month as maintenance. She has claimed that during the marriage, she gradually lost her independence and financial control. In the petition, she states that she was “robbed of her financial independence and dignity” and alleges that she was subjected to years of coercive control.
She has alleged that Peter Haag restricted her work opportunities, blocked her access to her own income and made her financially dependent on him. The complaint describes him as a “self-absorbed individual” who allegedly showed “no empathy” towards her or their children.
The petition further alleges misuse of her money, claiming that Peter Haag withdrew funds from her bank accounts and used her debit and credit cards on the pretext of managing household expenses. One of the key issues raised is a 2019 gift deed related to her Mumbai apartment.
Celina Jaitly has claimed that she signed this document while she was emotionally vulnerable and later discovered that Peter Haag earned around Rs 1.26 crore by renting out the apartment without informing her.
She has also alleged that a jointly purchased property in Vienna was sold by Peter Haag without her knowledge. According to her, her condition worsened after the family shifted to a small village in Austria. The petition states that she eventually managed to leave Austria with the help of a neighbour after finding important documents that were allegedly withheld from her.
The case is further complicated as divorce proceedings between the couple are already pending in Austria. Reports indicate that Peter Haag has blamed Celina Jaitly for the breakdown of the marriage.
In her petition, Celina Jaitly has described her husband as a “narcissistic” and “self-absorbed” person who “shows no empathy” towards her or their children. She has alleged that she suffered continuous emotional, physical, sexual and verbal abuse, which forced her to leave their home in Austria and return to India.
Along with Rs 10 lakh per month maintenance, she has requested the court to restrain Peter Haag from entering her Mumbai residence. She has also sought custody of their three children, who are currently living with Peter Haag in Austria.
Her legal team has stated that she was recently granted one hour of daily telephone contact with her children after a phase during which she claims Peter Haag completely cut off her communication with them. In her Mumbai domestic violence complaint, she has asserted that she has been stopped from speaking to her children since she initiated legal proceedings in India.
The Mumbai court has said that it needs clear details of the financial position of both parties before deciding on any interim relief. With Peter Haag now required to submit his income affidavit and reply, the case will be taken up again on January 27, when the court will review the documents and consider Celina Jaitly’s interim applications.
Laws & Sections Involved – Explanatory Table
| Law / Provision | Section | Explanation | Relevance to This Case |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Section 12 | Allows an aggrieved woman to file an application before the Magistrate seeking reliefs under the Act | Celina Jaitly has filed her domestic violence complaint under this provision |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Section 17 | Right of a woman to reside in the shared household | Basis for her request to restrain Peter Haag from entering her Mumbai residence |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Section 18 | Protection orders against acts of domestic violence | Sought to prevent further alleged harassment or interference |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Section 19 | Residence orders, including restraining the respondent from dispossessing or disturbing possession | Linked to her plea regarding residence and safety |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Section 20 | Monetary reliefs including maintenance and compensation | Foundation for her claim of Rs 10 lakh monthly maintenance and Rs 100 crore compensation |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Section 21 | Custody orders for children | Relevant to her plea seeking custody of her three children |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Section 22 | Compensation orders for injuries including mental and emotional distress | Basis for her compensation claim |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 23 (as applicable via DV Act) | Power of Magistrate to grant interim and ex parte orders | Court considering interim relief after income affidavits |
| Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | — | Governs proof of documents and financial records | Income affidavits and financial documents will be assessed under evidentiary rules |
Case Summary
- Case Title: Celina Jaitly Haag vs Peter Haag
- Nature of Case: Domestic Violence Complaint seeking protection, residence, monetary relief, compensation, and custody
- Court: Court of SC Tadye, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Andheri, Mumbai
- Bench: Judicial Magistrate First Class SC Tadye
- Date of Latest Hearing: December 12, 2025
- Next Date of Hearing: January 27, 2026
- Stage of Proceedings: Income affidavits and reply to be filed; matter adjourned for further hearing
Reliefs Sought:
- Rs 100 crore compensation
- Rs 10 lakh per month maintenance
- Protection and residence-related reliefs
- Custody of three children
- Restriction on respondent entering Mumbai residence
Key Allegations Noted by the Court:
- Alleged physical, verbal, emotional, and financial abuse
- Alleged deprivation of financial independence
- Alleged misuse of bank accounts and properties
- Alleged denial of access to children
Counsels Appearing
For the Complainant (Celina Jaitly Haag):
- Karanjawala & Co.
- Sandeep Kapur, Senior Partner
- Niharika Karanjawala Misra, Principal Associate
- Rytim Vohra Ahuja, Senior Associate
- Arpan Rajput, Advocate
- Hinal Sanghavi, Advocate
For the Respondent (Peter Haag): Indus Law Advocate Varun Tandon and team
Key Takeaways
- A demand of Rs 100 crore compensation and Rs 10 lakh monthly maintenance highlights how domestic violence law is increasingly used as a high-stakes financial weapon against husbands.
- The court itself has first asked for income affidavits from both sides, showing that allegations alone are not enough and financial reality matters.
- Parallel proceedings in India and Austria underline how cross-border marriages can trap men in multiple jurisdictions at the same time.
- Property transfers, gift deeds, and financial control claims show how matrimonial disputes are now deeply linked with asset grabbing narratives.
- This case again proves why gender-neutral domestic violence laws and strict scrutiny of monetary claims are urgently needed to protect men from legal overreach.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.