Air hostess consulted lawyer for divorce

NEW DELHI: The dispute between Anissia Batra, the 39-year-old flight attendant who allegedly jumped to death from the terrace of her residence in south Delhi’s Panchsheel Park on July 13, and her husband, Mayank Singhvi, had grown over the past six months after she started consulting a lawyer to file for divorce.
Anissia’s friends said that Mayank would turn violent during their arguments and assault her brutally.She had sent photographs of these assaults to her friends seeking help. In one of her last messages, she had told a friend that Mayank had driven her to a point where she couldn’t repair what had happened. The friend had asked Anissia to leave the house immediately, but the message didn’t get delivered.
The friend whom Anissia had texted before jumping off the terrace claimed that she had spoken to Mayank on the day of the incident and asked him to resolve their differences. She said that Mayank was furious when he learnt that she too knew about his married life.
The woman’s friends claimed that Anissia was too strong to take such a drastic step. She was supposed to take a flight on Saturday and had packed for it. She had also made up her mind to move out. She had consulted a divorce lawyer and was in talks with real estate agents to look for a house in East of Kailash, her friends said.
Her family members said that Anissia was upset about Mayank not mentioning his earlier marriage. “But this was not a reason that would make her take such an extreme step,” said a family member.
Meanwhile, a city court on Friday rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Mayank’s parents, R S Singhvi and Sushma. They had moved the court of additional sessions judge Neelam Singh. “The charges are serious in nature and the investigation is at a crucial stage. I am not inclined to grant any bail to the applicants/accused at this stage,” the court held.
The court had earlier sent Mayank to 14-days judicial custody. The court had remanded him after Delhi Police moved an application, saying the accused was not required for custodial interrogation.