The Bombay High Court in its recent order held that an estranged wife does not have the right to obstruct the sale of her husband’s home, if he is willing to provide her a rented accommodation with similar facilities.
The high court refused to interfere with a Family Court order, that permitted the husband to sell his flat.
Case:
The couple got married in 1996 and have two daughters aged 24 and 16 respectively, reported LiveLaw.
After the couple separated and while the divorce proceedings are ongoing before the Family Court, the husband in 2021, filed an application to sell his flat in order to clear his outstanding loan.
Family Court
The Family Court permitted the husband to sell the apartment and also directed the wife to move out of the accommodation. Alternately, the court suggested that the wife could choose a suitable two-bedroom rental flat and if she did not wish to do so, the husband would pay her Rs 50,000 per month.
The Family Court thus ordered:
- Allowed the husband to sell the premises in question
- Directed him to keep Rs 2 crore in a nationalised bank in fixed deposit, which, it said, shall not be liquidated without permission of the Family Court
Aggrieved with this order, the wife approached high court.
Arguments by Wife
The wife’s counsel contended that the husband had raised a mortgage to purchase shares. It was alleged that his main aim was to oust her from her matrimonial home and denied that her husband was facing any financial problems.
Submission by Husband
The husband on the other hand, through his advocate, submitted that he had paid forty-four (44) instalments for the flat amounting to Rs 1.15 crore along with interest. However, due to Covid-19 restrictions, he wasn’t able to go back to the UK and was compelled to stay in India. He thus submitted that he was unable to pay the EMI and bear expenses of two households.
However, the husband did not deny supporting his estranged wife and instead offered to pay her rent for a similar apartment. The counsel also suggested that if the bank initiated recovery proceedings, his client’s financial credibility and credit record would be damaged.
Bombay High Court
Justice Amit Borkar of the Bombay High Court observed that such a Family Court order takes care of the rights of both parties and the wife can’t be heard to say that she would obstruct sale merely because she is habituated to the flat. The Judge observed:
It is well settled that the wife has a right to lead similar life style as that of the husband. However, she has no right to impede sale of flat owned by husband if he provides similar alternative accommodation in vicinity.
Justice Borkar added,
If husband is ready to provide alternative rental accommodation having similar advantages, she cannot refuse it on the ground that she is habituated in the existing flat.
Regarding the wife’s apprehension of eviction, the court said the husband has already given an undertaking that he will pay rent of alternative premises on a monthly basis.
The High Court also observed:
The material on record shows that the husband has continued to pay EMI of suit premises even after separation of petitioner and respondent.
This indicates that the intention of husband is not to evict petitioner from suit premises but to shift her to alternative accommodation which is suitable for her. The undertaking dated 13th January 2023 takes care of rights of wife.
Leave Your Comments Below:
MUST WATCH:
#Bhopal | Working Woman Files Maintenance Case Against Ailing Husband Suffering From Cancer
Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below
If you find value in our work, you may choose to donate to Voice For Men Foundation via Milaap OR via UPI: voiceformenindia@hdfcbank (80G tax exemption applicable)
Follow Us
