Wife Cannot Stop Flat Sale If Husband Provides Similar Home: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court recently stated that a wife cannot prevent her husband from selling his flat if he offers her a similar rental accommodation nearby. The court clarified that while a wife has the right to a lifestyle equal to her husband, she cannot insist on staying in a particular house.
Justice Amit Borkar, on January 30, dismissed a woman’s plea challenging a December 2021 order by the Bandra Family Court, which had allowed her estranged husband to sell a flat to repay an outstanding loan. The family court had also instructed the wife to find a 2BHK flat on rent within 30 days or receive ₹50,000 as monthly rent from her husband.
The couple had married in December 1996, and the husband filed for divorce in February 2021, which is still pending. He stated that he had paid 44 EMIs totaling ₹1.15 crore for the flat but couldn’t keep up payments after being stuck in India due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which prevented his return to his UK-based job.
The husband argued that selling the flat was necessary to avoid bank recovery proceedings, which could hurt his financial credibility. He even offered alternative homes nearby, which the wife declined. His lawyer, Mohit Bhardwaj, emphasized that the wife has no legal right to stay in a specific flat.
The wife, however, claimed that her husband’s financial crisis was made up and that the sale was meant to evict her from her long-term home.
The court noted that the family court had acted fairly, ensuring the wife’s right to a similar lifestyle was respected. Justice Borkar said:
“If the husband is willing to provide similar accommodation in the same area, the wife cannot object just because she is used to the current flat.”
The wife’s lawyer, Abhijit Sarwate, raised concerns about eviction if rent wasn’t paid. But the court noted that the husband had given an undertaking to pay rent and was aware of the consequences of failing to do so.
The court further added that the husband showed genuine intention and even continued paying EMIs after separation. A condition was also placed that ₹2 crore from the sale would be kept in a fixed deposit and could not be withdrawn without court approval.
Finally, the court found no fault with the family court’s decision and refused to interfere, officially dismissing the wife’s petition.
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==