Supreme Court Disapproves Estranged Wife's Demand That Alternate House Should Have 'Same' Luxuries As Matrimonial Home

In a matrimonial dispute, the Supreme Court disapproved the stand taken by an estranged wife that the alternate accommodation offered to her should have the "same" luxuries as her matrimonial home, where she used to live with her husband.

The Court also rejected her plea seeking permission to reside in the matrimonial home, after noting that "relations between the parties are so strained that if they are permitted to live in the said house, it would lead to nothing else but further criminal proceedings".

The couple used to live in posh locality in Mumbai and the wife left that home voluntarily when the relationship soured.

In the earlier proceedings, the Court had asked the wife to select a house of her choice on rent in Mumbai. Later, the Court directed the Registrar of the Family Court at Bandra in Mumbai to engage an architect from the panel of architects maintained by the Bombay High Court for finding out a "similar" house as the matrimonial house for her and her daughter.

"It is made clear that the residence shall be approximately similar to the size of (earlier home address***) and located as far as possible in Bandra and Juhu area", the Court's order passed on March 6, 2020 had stated.

The architect shortlisted 17 properties in Mumbai's upscale location. However, the wife rejected all the properties saying they are smaller compared to the husband's home.

Criticizing this approach of the wife, a bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Raoa and BR Gavai observed :
 

"In our view, to stretch the word 'similar' as used in the order dated 6th March 2020, to be totally identical to the said house, would be unrealistic. It will be difficult to find out a house identical to the said house having the same area, the same facilities and the same luxuries. The word 'similar' has to be construed as providing the same degree of luxury and comfort as is available in the said house. We have no hesitation in observing that the conduct of the respondent­ wife in firstly not choosing any house as per her choice and secondly, in rejecting all the properties, which have been identified by the Architect, only on the ground that they are not similar and therefore, not in accordance with the order dated 6th March 2020, to say the least is unreasonable."

The Court also observed that to allow the wife to move into her husband's home would be not subserve the interest of parties.

 "... if we allow the prayer and allow the respondent­ wife to move into the said house, it will rather than subserving the interest of the parties, would be detrimental to their interests. The record and the pendency of the criminal proceedings would show that the relations between the parties are so strained that if they are permitted to live in the said house, it would lead to nothing else but further criminal proceedings".

With regards to the alternative prayer made by the wife to direct the husband to pay Rs.35.37 lakhs per month as rent, the bench after referring to the Family Court's order dated July 30, 2018, observed that, "The Family Court, by an elaborate order, after recording the details about the income of the parties, had directed an interim maintenance to be paid to the respondent­ wife at the rate of Rs. 7 lakhs per month and to the minor at the rate of Rs. 5 lakhs per month. If the prayer for payment of an amount is allowed, it will be giving an additional amount to the respondent­ wife. It will amount to awarding an amount which is much more than the one to which the respondent­ wife was found entitled by the Family Court."

Considering that the divorce petition has been pending before the Family Court for a period of last 6 years, the bench directed the Family Court to expeditiously decide the same so that there can be some quietus to the acrimonious litigation pending between the parties.

The bench also said that in the event, the wife decided to shift to any of the properties mentioned in the list annexed with the report of the Architect dated 3rd February 2021 or she located any of the rented premises as per her choice, the ­husband shall pay the rent of the said premises from the date on which such premises are taken on rent.

"However, taking into consideration that the highest rent of the properties identified by the Architect is Rs. 30 lakhs per month, the appellant­ husband would be liable to pay rent to the maximum of Rs. 30 lakhs per month", the bench further added.