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

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. Mrs S Rilaxami v. Mr A Drian, decided on 12-02-2015.

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.