MUMBAI: A family court on Monday rejected a wife’s interim plea seeking her estranged husband’s removal from their Lokhandwala flat where she stays with him and their child, just because she pays the EMI (equated monthly installment to repay home loan).
The court, while ruling in favour of the man who pays Rs 90,000 a month for household expenses, said in the current day, it is difficult to ascertain who has contributed how much while purchasing any asset or discharging any liability. “If both contribute to the household, either this way or that way, a particular spouse cannot claim exclusive right, ownership or title in the household property, merely because either the property stands in her name or she has contributed financially,” said the judge.
“Not giving bath to a daughter cannot be a ground for the wife for excluding the husband from a property.
Similarly, his absent-mindedness of not removing the key from the keyhole while entering the house would be an unintended nuisance to the wife, but it cannot be a ground for throwing him out of the house.”
Among other reasons, the woman had claimed that her husband scolded the domestic help for drinking water untidily, left the child in the car while purchasing snacks, gave her lectures on parenting and did not lower the volume of the television.
The court referred to a Bombay high court judgment, which observed that if a husband shows negative treatment like disturbing the matrimonial life and jeopardizing the safety and security of the spouse and children, then such an interim injunction can be granted. “No such contention is raised in this application. On the contrary, the grounds mentioned show that this is the normal bickering which occurs in an ill-tuned family,” the court said. The court advised the parents to keep peace for the child’s sake until the petition is decided.
It’s a bit perplexing to me. The news doesn’t say who has filed petition – husband or wife. I don’t know what kind of petition can be filed in family court when husband and wife are already staying together! It can’t be RCR (restitution of conjugal rights). It can be CrPC 125 or DV case to ask maintenance. But wife seems to be earning and paying EMI so it’s not exactly a case that she faces a financial crunch. Filing divorce while staying in same flat is in theory possible, but it might raise suspicion of collusion between the parties; unless the petitioner and respondent can both state that they have to stay in same house due to financial crunch until the case gets decided!
Most likely it was CrPC 125 or maintenance under DV case, and the reason for staying in same flat are could be to do with housing crunch and high rents in Mumbai!