Wanda Nara requested a restraining order against Mauro Icardi

Wanda Naraformally requested a restraining order against Mauro Icardi.The request was supported not only by Nara but also by the Prosecutor's Office, which is backing the complaint due to the alleged violence that was reportedly committed against the media personality.

The influencer's lawyer, Nicolás Payarola, explained in a message to Marina Calabró for the program Lape Club Social that this request arises after a new judicial episode involving both, this time in a prosecutor's office in Palermo."The case is based on acts of violence that the Prosecutor's Office considers as proven", stated the attorney, who highlighted the work of the gender prosecutor in charge of the case. According to Payarola, she has conducted an exhaustive review of all the reported incidents.

This judicial episode originates from a previous conflict, which occurred on March 14, when a discussion between Wanda and Mauro at the Chateau Libertador, where the host resides, ended with the intervention of the City Police and an ambulance from SAME. As a result of this altercation, the appointment at the Prosecutor's Office, located at Beruti 3345, was scheduled for 9 in the morning, and the hearing was attended by lawyers, psychologists, and other judicial actors closely following the complicated case file.

Although the cosmetics entrepreneur arrived on time, accompanied by her lawyer, the footballer did not attend the hearing, which increased the tension of the case. Payarola clarified that, regarding the duration of the restraining order, it will be the judge's decision, who has not yet issued a final ruling.

The lawyer also emphasized the importance of protecting the well-being of the minors involved, highlighting that the Public Guardian's Office is working to ensure compliance with the family reunification process.

Meanwhile, as the anticipation for Mauro's arrival at the court increased, his absence was clarified by his criminal lawyer, Gonzalo Romero Victorica, who appeared before the media with a firm stance:"The complainant maintained her request for precautionary measures. It was not mandatory for him to be present, as the court's decree did not establish that his presence was necessary. For that reason, he decided to avoid it, given that Ms. Nara would indeed attend".