The Bombay High Court in the case RMS vs MOP observed and have the right to obstruct the sale of her estranged husband’s home if he is willing to provide her a rented accommodation with similar facilities.
In the present case, the court made the said observations while refusing to interfere with an order of the Family Court wherein the court permitted the husband to sell the flat for clearing an outstanding loan. It has also been directed by the Family Court that the wife to move out of the accommodation and to choose a suitable two-bedroom rental flat, failing which she would be handed over Rs. 50,000 per month.
The bench headed by Justice Amit Borkar stated that it being a well settled law that the wife has a right to lead similar life style as that of the husband. Thus, the wife has no such right to impede sale of flat which is owned by husband if husband provides similar alternative accommodation in vicinity. If the said husband dis ready to provide alternative rental accommodation having similar advantages, it cannot be refused by her on the ground that she is habituated in the existing flat.
It has been observed by the court that such an order takes care of the rights of both parties and the wife cannot be heard to say that she would obstruct sale merely because she being habituated to the flat.
Facts of the Case:
An application has been filed by the husband in 2021 to sell his flat, in the divorce plea of the husband which is pending before the family court. Thus, the application has been allowed by the Family Court following which the wife assailed the order passed by Family Court before the high court.
In 1996, the couple got married and have two daughters, aged 24 and 16. Before the court, the counsel, Advocate Mohit Bhardwaj appearing for the husband submitted he had paid forty-four (44) instalments for the flat amounting to Rs. 1.15 crore along with interest. Therefore, due to the restriction of Covid-19, the husband was not able to go back to the UK and was compelled to stay in India. The husband is now unable to pay the EMI and is unable to bear expenses of two households.
Instead, the husband offered to pay rent. The counsel appearing for the husband submitted that If the bank initiated recovery proceedings, his financial credibility and credit record would be damaged.
The counsel, Abhijit Sarwate appearing for the wife instructed by Ajinkya Udane wherein it is contended that the husband had raised a mortgage to purchase shares. Before the Court, it has been alleged that the main aim of the husband was to oust her from her matrimonial home and denied that her husband was facing any financial problems.
Observations made by Court:
It has been observed by the Court that the order passed by the Family Court balanced the rights of both parties. It being a well settled law that the wife has a right to lead a similar lifestyle as that of the husband.
The court stated regarding the wife’s apprehension of eviction that the husband has already given an undertaking that he will pay rent of alternative premises on a monthly basis.
