Bombay HC: Husband Can Sell Flat if He Provides Alternative Accommodation for Wife
Recently, the Bombay High Court ruled that a wife cannot stop her husband from selling a flat he owns if he provides similar alternative accommodation nearby.
On January 30, Justice Amit Borkar dismissed a woman’s petition challenging a December 2021 order by the Bandra Family Court. The family court had allowed her estranged husband to sell the flat to clear an outstanding loan.
The family court had directed the wife to choose a 2 BHK rental flat for herself and her children within 30 days or receive Rs 50,000 per month towards rent from her husband.
The couple married in December 1996, and the husband filed for divorce in February 2021. In May 2021, he applied to the Family Court, stating he had paid 44 installments totaling Rs 1.15 crore plus interest for the flat. Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, he couldn’t return to his job in the UK and was struggling to pay EMIs and household expenses. He feared that if the bank initiated recovery proceedings, his financial credibility would be damaged. He offered nearby flats, but his wife refused.
The wife claimed her husband wasn’t facing a financial crisis and was trying to evict her from their matrimonial home. She argued that she had lived there for a long time and was accustomed to the environment. The husband’s advocate, Mohit Bhardwaj, contended that the wife had no right to insist on staying in a specific house.
Justice Borkar noted that the family court’s order balanced both parties’ rights. He stated, “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 the husband if he provides similar alternative accommodation nearby. If the husband is ready to provide alternative rental accommodation with similar advantages, she cannot refuse it on the grounds that she is accustomed to the existing flat.”
The wife’s advocate, Abhijit Sarwate, argued that if the husband failed to pay rent, it would lead to her eviction. Justice Borkar emphasized the husband’s commitment to pay the rent, acknowledging the consequences of any breach. He added that the family court’s order was “rightly molded” to allow the flat’s sale and to deposit Rs 2 crore in a nationalized bank as a fixed deposit, which could not be liquidated without the family court’s permission.
Justice Borkar affirmed that the husband’s offer was genuine and that he continued paying the flat’s EMI even after separation. He concluded that the family court’s equitable order required no interference and dismissed the wife’s petition to stop the flat’s sale.
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
