In a complex legal battle, the Court delves into the intricacies of property disputes within the context of a divorce case. With a focus on fair analysis and equitable solutions, the Court’s decisions play a crucial role in shaping the outcome of the case.
Facts
- The appellant-husband filed a divorce petition in October 2015 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.
- Various cases including FIRs were filed by both the husband and wife against each other during the pendency of the divorce petition.
- Mediation attempts were made by the Court to resolve the dispute, but it was deemed not possible at that stage.
- High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the respondent-wife, granting an injunction against her from entering the shared residence.
- Multiple attempts at amicable settlement through mediation were unsuccessful, leading the matter to reach this Court for resolution.
- Discrepancy highlighted in the income disparity between the parties, with the appellant-husband earning significantly more than the respondent-wife and their daughter having to survive on a limited amount per month.
- Both parties expressed the view that there is no point in continuing with the mediation.
- The mediator observed that mediation cannot be carried on and closed it.
- Prayers in I.A. No 60354 of 2021 and I.A. No 59776 of 2021 were presented to the court.
- Shri Shyam Divan represented the respondent-wife, while Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented the non-applicant-appellant husband.
- The respondent-wife is deprived of staying in the shared household due to the status quo order passed by the court.
- The shared household is as per Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Also Read: Presumption of Genuine Endorsements in Cheque Case
Issue
- The Court directed the Registrar of the Family Court to engage an architect for finding appropriate accommodation for the respondent-wife.
- The residence was to be similar in size to 82, Pali Hill, Bandra and located in Bandra or Juhu area.
- The architect submitted a list of 17 properties as per the Court’s directive.
- The respondent-wife found none of the properties similar to the desired house and raised interlocutory applications.
Also Read: Medical Negligence and Compensation: A Landmark Decision
Arguments
- The appellant-husband is trying to move into the matrimonial house with his mistress, abusing the court process.
- A fabricated petition has been filed by the husband.
- An architect was appointed by the Family Court to find a house similar to the matrimonial house for the wife.
- The appellant will pay the rent for the suggested premises.
- The respondent-wife will choose rented premises equivalent to her residence at 82, Pali Hill, Bandra, Mumbai.
- The suggested properties by the architect are not similar to the wife’s residence.
- The disposal of the pending divorce petition is to be discussed on 26.02.2020.
- The respondent is currently staying with her mother while the appellant is residing with his mistress in the shared household.
- The appellant-husband has an adulterous relationship and has fathered a child from it.
- Appellant-husband willing to pay rent for chosen premises by respondent-wife
- Appellant-husband offered Rs.100 crore settlement, but respondent-wife demands Rs.600 crore
- Appellant-husband willing to pay for staff at matrimonial home and maintenance as per actuals
- Alternative suggestions of paying rent and maintenance costs for matrimonial home
- Respondent-wife found to have sufficient income but seeks undue advantage of appellant-husband’s wealth
- Allegations made by both parties not necessary to be explored
- Request to vacate status quo based on conduct of appellant-husband
Also Read: Remand of Writ Petition for Restoration and Decision on Merits
Analysis
- The word ‘similar’ as used in the order dated 6 March 2020, is stretched to mean providing the same degree of luxury and comfort as the specified house.
- Various properties were identified by an architect to fulfill the accommodation requirements of the respondent-wife.
- The respondent-wife rejected all identified properties on the grounds of not being similar to the specified house.
- Living together in the specified house would further deteriorate the strained relations between the parties and may lead to more criminal proceedings.
- Attempts at mediation and settlement between the parties have been unsuccessful.
- The Family Court had directed interim maintenance to be paid to the respondent-wife and minor child.
- Vacating the status quo ordered after hearing the parties may not be beneficial given the acrimonious history.
- The properties listed by the architect were located in upscale areas like Bandra, Juhu, Santacruz, and Khar.
- Identifying a house identical to the specified one in terms of area, facilities, and luxuries is deemed difficult.
- The balance of equities in the matter has been considered by the Court before passing orders.
- The respondent-wife’s remarks on identified properties often mention lack of similarity to the specified house.
- Interlocutory applications rejected as no merit found
- Divorce petition pending before Family Court should be decided expeditiously
- Interest of both parties to have some quietus to acrimonious litigation
Decision
- Family Court directed to expedite proceedings of Petition No A-2742 of 2015
- Appellant-husband to pay rent for properties chosen by respondent-wife
- Maximum rent to be paid is Rs. 30 lakhs per month
Case Title: POONAM JAIDEV SHROFF Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2021 INSC 821)
Case Number: SLP(Crl) No.-003851-003851 / 2017
