The Bombay High Court, in a recent ruling, stated that an estranged wife is not entitled to impede the sale of her husband’s home if he is willing to offer her alternative rental accommodation with comparable amenities. The high court declined to challenge a Family Court decision that authorized the husband to sell his apartment.
Case:
According to LiveLaw, the couple entered into matrimony in 1996 and have two daughters, 24 and 16 years of age. Following their separation, divorce proceedings are currently underway in the Family Court. In 2021, the husband filed an application to sell his apartment, with the aim of settling his outstanding loan, during the ongoing divorce proceedings.
Family Court
The Family Court granted permission to the husband to sell the flat and ordered the wife to vacate the premises. The court also presented the option for the wife to select a two-bedroom rental accommodation of her choice, and in the event that she declined this option, the husband would be obligated to pay her a sum of Rs 50,000 per month.
The Family Court issued the following order:
Granted the husband permission to sell the disputed property.
Instructed the husband to deposit Rs 2 crore in a fixed deposit account with a nationalized bank, and specified that the funds may not be withdrawn without the prior authorization of the Family Court.
Dissatisfied with this ruling, the wife filed an appeal to the High Court.
Arguments by Wife
The counsel representing the wife argued that the husband had taken out a mortgage to buy shares, and that his primary objective was to evict her from their matrimonial home. The counsel disputed the husband’s claim of facing financial difficulties.
Submission by Husband
The husband’s advocate, however, submitted that the husband had made 44 payments towards the flat, totaling Rs 1.15 crore, along with interest. Due to Covid-19 restrictions, the husband was unable to return to the UK and was forced to remain in India, causing him to struggle with paying the EMI and supporting two households. The husband did not refute his obligation to support his estranged wife, and instead offered to pay for her rental of a comparable apartment. The counsel further argued that if the bank initiated debt collection proceedings, it would negatively impact the husband’s financial reputation and credit history.
Bombay High Court
Justice Amit Borkar of the Bombay High Court noted that the Family Court’s order safeguards the rights of both parties, and the wife cannot claim the right to block the sale simply because she is accustomed to living in the apartment. The Judge stated:
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.