Wife cannot oust her husband from the home on the ground that she pays EMI for the home loan

Wife cannot oust her husband from the home on the ground that
she pays EMI for the home loan

[Mrs S v. Mr A, decided on 12-02-2015].


Family Court, Mumbai:

Dealing as to whether a wife who pays EMI of home loan can oust her husband from the flat in dispute on the grounds which are daily wear and tear of a matrimonial relationship, a bench of P.L. Palsingankar J rejected the application of wife and refused to consider her prayer for injunction against the respondent.

In the instant case, the petitioner-wife filed an interim application with a prayer that the respondent-husband be directed to vacate the flat in dispute on the ground that the petitioner is paying EMI of the home loan and also alleged cruelty perpetrated on her by the respondent.

The respondent contended that the petitioner pays EMI for home loan but he incur monthly expenses of Rs 90,000/- towards family expenses, and if a relief in nature sought is granted then injustice would cause to him.

The Court found that the grounds mentioned by the petitioner in the application includes respondent forgetting keys of house while entering the house, not giving bath to child, leaving child in the car while purchasing snacks etc which are minor grounds which exists in every household.

The Court noted that “in a matrimonial household it becomes difficult to ascertain who has contributed how much while purchasing any asset or discharging any liability” and that “in modern times, both the spouses work, earn and acquire assets out of their earning”.

The Court relied on the words of Lord Denning that “when parties by their joint efforts save money to buy a house, then the proper presumption is that the beneficial interest belongs to both of them jointly.”

The Court held that “neither the spouse can assert their exclusive rights over any property which they jointly acquired by their own efforts after their marriage and therefore they cannot exclude each other unless the grounds mentioned in the application on which the said injunction is sought are grave and weighty”.

The Court noted that “the relief sought in this application is a relief which ought to have been asked as final relief and that a husband cannot be thrown away on the minor grounds at interim level” and accordingly rejected the application of the petitioner holding that the relief directing the respondent to vacate the premises cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner at this stage.

From - SCC

Property details, investments and assets can be accessed by one’s spouse under RTI

 Property details, investments and assets can be accessed by one’s spouse under RTI

(Prashansa Sharma v. Delhi Transco Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine CIC 258,
decided on February 3, 2015)


Central Information Commission (CIC):

“Though certain documents like annual returns of assets, investments, IT returns etc were earlier declared as private/ personal or third party information, as far as spouses are concerned they are not private or personal or third party information between them, in the context of marital disputes especially for maintenance purposes”, held CIC while directing Delhi Transco Ltd.

to provide property details, investments and assets of the husband, to an estranged wife and an alleged victim of domestic violence.

This order of CIC came upon an appeal filed by a woman engaged in matrimonial and maintenance dispute with her husband who was a government employee and she sought to know details of his property including that given in dowry and action details against her husband for attempting to commit bigamy, etc.

While rejecting the contention of Delhi Transco that income details of a person is "personal information", CIC referred to the judgments of Delhi High Court, Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6793, decided on 14th January 2015) and Puneet Kaur v. Inderjit Singh Sawhney, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3841, in which the court had asked both husband and wife to submit affidavits of income, assets and investments.

CIC further observed that depending on the financial conditions and non-availability of support from parents, when husband does not maintain his wife, it challenges her right to live, and thus information related to maintenance becomes life related information.

This information about assets, income and investments of spouses is no more private or personal information as against spouses, even if that information could be personal or private information as against any person other than spouse.

The proviso to Section 8(1)(j) read with Section 8(2) of the Right to Information Act entitled the appellant to get information which she sought because of overwhelming public interest in securing the lives of deserted wives.

So far, such information has been considered exempt under the RTI Act and treated as private or third party information. CIC also lashed the PIO and General Manager (HR) of Delhi Transco for suppressing the information and obstructing the furnishing of information to the appellant.


FROM - SCC

Husband is not bound to maintain a well qualified wife who is sitting idle and not working

Husband is not bound to maintain a well qualified wife
who is sitting idle and not working

[Firdos Mohd. Shoeb Khan v. Mohd. Shoeb Mohd. Salim Khan,
decided on 20.02.2015].


Family Court, Mumbai: Looking at the burden on the husband to provide maintenance to his wife even in cases where the wife is well educated and capable enough to earn for her living, a bench of S.A. Morey J gave a landmark judgment in favour of husband to curb the misuse of the provision of maintenance, and held that a wife who is well qualified and is capable to earn cannot sit idle and claim maintenance from her husband.

In the instant case, petitioner-wife moved an application before this Court for grant of maintenance from the respondent-husband during the pendency of petition under Section 125 CrPC.

The petitioner alleged that she was forced to live separately as the respondent and his family members ill-treated and harassed her for bringing less dowry.

The petitioner contended that the respondent is a successful businessman and is doing business not only in India but also in Dubai and other countries, and that his total income per month is more than Rs. 15 lakhs, and therefore considering the status of her husband, she prayed for grant of maintenance @ Rs. 2 lakhs per month.

Firstly, the Court rejected the contention of the respondent that the petitioner is not entitled to get maintenance as she is not legally wedded wife and that marriage between them was dissolved by way of talaq, and held that Section 125 CrPC itself has given definition of ‘wife’ which includes divorcee wife and makes clear that a Muslim woman who is either divorcee or who obtained divorce is entitled to get maintenance till her remarriage, and therefore respondent’s contention does not affect the right of the petitioner to claim maintenance.

Secondly, the Court observed that the petitioner is well qualified, has completed degree in Food and Science Nutrician, is Post Graduate in Dietician field, had worked as a dietician with an income of Rs. 50000 per month, and has experience of working with reputed companies like Larsen and Toubro etc but at present she is not working.

The Court relied on Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal, 2000 (3) MPLJ 100, where it was held that “well qualified wife is not entitled to remain as an idle and claim maintenance from her husband”.

The Court noted that the facts of the present case clearly shows that the petitioner is having good capacity to earn and therefore held that “the wife who is well qualified and claiming maintenance by sitting idle is not entitled to get maintenance”.

 Accordingly, the Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner.

From - SCC

Husband’s extra- marital relationship does not amount to cruelty

Husband’s extra- marital relationship does not amount to cruelty

[Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat,
2015 SCC OnLine SC 137, decided on 18.02.2015]



Supreme Court: In the instant case, where the question arose that whether a husband’s extra-marital affair amounts to cruelty under Section 498A of IPC, the Bench of Dipak Misra and S.J Mukhopadhayay, JJ., observed that husband’s intimacy with another woman during the subsistence of marriage and failure to perform his marital responsibilities would not amount to cruelty, even though the evidences in the instant case point out towards an extra marital affair, the same cannot be termed as a form of mental cruelty of such a degree that would compel the wife to commit suicide.

The Bench further observed that extra- marital affair if proved would be immoral and illegal, but it would take a different character altogether if the prosecution proves that the accused person’s conduct is such that it drove the wife to end her life.

As per the facts of the present case, the wife of one of the appellant (Rakesh) had committed suicide, allegedly after coming to know about her husband’s illicit relationship with another woman, thereby leading to the appellants’ conviction under Sections 498A, 306, 201 and 114 of IPC.

It was argued by the appellants’ counsel Harish Raichura that the husband had already divorced the deceased before the suicide took place. The prosecution counsel Anurag Ahluwalia however contended that the husband’s extra- marital affair led to several arguments between them finally compelling the deceased to commit suicide.

The appellants were found guilty by the Sessions Court and were convicted; further the conviction was upheld by the Gujarat High Court.

Perusing the facts and arguments in the present case, the Court observed that the issue involved in the present case is that whether the extra marital affair was a cruelty of such nature by the husband that it compelled the wife to end her life and whether such a situation is covered under the ambit of Section 498A of IPC.

The Court on referring Section 498A of IPC and its decision in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 48, observed that if the extra- marital affair is of such nature, which is likely to drive the wife to commit suicide, then it would fall under the ambit of Explanation appended to Section 498A.

The Court further stated that in the present case the evidence produced did not establish a high degree of mental cruelty caused by the husband’s extra- marital affair so as to attract the provisions of Section 498A of IPC.   

From - SCC