Recently, the Bombay High Court observed that a wife cannot prevent the sale of a flat owned by her husband if he provides similar alternative accommodation in the vicinity.
Justice Amit Borkar on January 30 dismissed a woman’s petition challenging a December 2021 order where the Bandra Family Court permitted her estranged husband to sell a flat to clear an outstanding loan.
The family court had directed her to choose 2 BHK flat on rent for herself and her children within 30 days or the husband would pay Rs 50,000 towards rent.
In this case the couple married in December 1996. The husband filed for divorce in February 2021, which is pending. In May 2021 he filed an application in the Family Court saying he had paid 44 instalments of Rs 1.15 crore along with interest for the flat. Due to the Covid-19 outbreak, he could not return to his workplace in the UK and was unable to continue paying EMI and expenses of two households. In case the bank initiated recovery proceedings against him, his financial credibility would be damaged. He offered flats nearby but his wife had refused.
Whereas, his wife fenied that her husband is facing a financial crisis. The wife said it is a plan to remove her from the matrimonial home. She said she had resided in the house for a long time and was used to the environment.
The husband’s advocate Mohit Bhardwaj argued that the wife has no right to claim she must be kept in a particular house.
Justice Borkar said the family court’s order appears to have “balanced the rights of both sides.” “It is well settled that the wife has a right to lead a similar lifestyle as that of the husband. However, she has no right to impede the sale of a flat owned by husband if the husband provides similar alternative accommodation in the vicinity. If the husband is ready to provide alternative rental accommodation with similar advantages, she cannot refuse it on the ground that she is habituated in the existing flat,” he added.
The wife’s advocate Abhijit Sarwate said if the husband does not pay rent it will result in her eviction. Justice Borkar noted the husband’s undertaking to pay the rent and added “he has been made aware of the consequence of breach.” He said relief was “rightly moulded” to allow sale and to keep Rs 2 crore in a nationalised bank in a fixed deposit which shall not be liquidated without the family court’s permission.
Justice Borkar also said the husband’s offer is “bona fide” and the material on record shows he continued to pay EMI of the premises even after separation. Also, the undertaking “takes care of the rights of the wife.” He concluded that “the equitable order” passed by the family court needs no interference and refused to stay it.
The Court dismissed the wife’s petition to stop her husband from selling the flat.
