Wife Has No Right To Impede Sale Of Husband's House If Alternate Accommodation is Provided: Bombay High Court

A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Amit Borkar has recently held that a wife has no right to impede the sale of a flat owned by the husband if the husband provides similar alternative accommodation in the vicinity.

The high court was hearing a case wherein the wife had challenged the order of the family court which had directed the wife to select an alternative house since the husband could not pay the EMI for the house she was residing in.

The couple got married in 1996 and had two children. During the divorce proceedings, the husband filed an application stating that he had obtained a loan from the bank for the purchase of the flat which was supposed to get over in 2022. However, the loan term was extended to 2029 due to COVID-19. He had stated that due to Covid-19 restrictions, he could not go back to his workplace in the United Kingdom and was compelled to stay in India and now he was unable to meet the EMI obligation of the bank and the expenses of two households.

The husband offered a 2 BHK rental flat to the wife and daughters in the vicinity of the present flat along with a security deposit for the said flat and said that he could afford the rent of Rs.40,000 around the vicinity of the existing flat.

The wife opposed the application while arguing that the husband had raised a mortgage loan to purchase shares and it was his plan to oust the wife from the matrimonial home. The wife said that she was residing in the matrimonial house for a long time and she was used to that environment. The wife denied that the husband was going through a financial crisis.

The court after hearing both sides said that the wife has no right to impede the sale of the house of the husband if similar accommodation is provided.

“I have heard learned advocates for both sides. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the order balance rights of both sides. 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 husband provides similar alternative accommodation in vicinity. 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," the court held.

The wife said that the husband might not pay the rent which would result in the owner evicting the wife and daughter. However, the husband filed an undertaking before the court stating that he shall pay rent for alternative premises on monthly basis.

The court while rejecting the contentions of the wife said that the intention of the husband was not to evict the wife but to shift her to any alternate accommodation.

“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. The husband has been made aware of the consequences for breach of this undertaking,” the court said.

Advocate Abhijit Sarwate with Advocate Hardev K. Aidhen and Adovcate Ajinkya Udane appeared for the wife.

Advocate Mohit Bhardwaj appeared for the husband.