During the trial, a representative for Pavel Priluchny stated that the actor’s former wife Agatha Muceniece would voluntarily vacate the shared living space. This development was reported by mk.ru and reflects ongoing negotiations surrounding the couple’s Moscow apartment.
The matter of Priluchny’s removal from Muceniece’s apartment could have been settled today, yet mistakes were discovered in the documentation. The court will reconvene for further proceedings on April 17 to address these discrepancies and determine the next steps in the case.
Earlier this February, Agatha Muceniece filed legal action against her ex-husband, seeking a declaration that Priluchny had forfeited the right to inhabit the Moscow dwelling he had occupied since their divorce. The lawsuit also requests his removal from the property registry, a move backed by the plaintiff in the pursuit of clear ownership and occupancy rights.
The four‑room apartment in northwest Moscow is the property in question. The household was purchased by the former couple shortly before they finalized their split. Current estimates place the apartment’s value around 30 million rubles, a figure that underscores the stake both parties have in the residence beyond sentimental ties.
Agatha Muceniece and Pavel Priluchny were married from 2011 until 2020 and share two children, Timofey, aged ten, and Mia, six years old. The actors’ family dynamic has evolved since their divorce; Priluchny is now married to Zepyur Brutyan, and the couple is expecting a child, a development that adds another layer to the ongoing housing dispute and public interest in their personal lives.
Observers note that the outcome of this case could set a precedent for how assets acquired during a marriage but used after a breakup are treated in similar disputes. The central questions revolve around occupancy rights, the validity of residency registrations, and the process by which ex-spouses can maintain or relinquish claims to family property. The court has signaled a careful, detail‑oriented review of all documents to ensure that the parties’ legal rights are balanced with the responsibilities attached to shared property ownership. As the legal process unfolds, both sides have emphasized that they want a clear and lawful resolution that respects the needs of their children and the realities of their separate lives. The next hearing will provide a clearer indication of how the case might proceed, including whether further documentary corrections will be required and what new terms might be imposed on occupancy or removal from the registry. The public interest in this case stems largely from the prominent status of the individuals involved and the broader implications for divorce property settlements in major urban centers like Moscow. These factors contribute to intense scrutiny of proceedings, even as both parties repeatedly frame their aims in terms of family stability and lawful ownership rather than personal conflict. The situation remains fluid as legal representatives prepare for the next stage, and observers await the judge’s rulings on whether any interim arrangements will be needed to protect the children during the process and to maintain order within the household until a final decision is rendered. At stake is the question of how much control former spouses can exert over real estate tied to a marriage, the mechanics of deregistering a former partner from property arrangements, and the practical effects on day to day life within the home. Attribution: reporting based on coverage from mk.ru.