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