Bombay High Court: Man Can’t Evict Wife From Flat Without Due Process Of Law.

In a relief for a 70-year-old woman locked in a matrimonial dispute with her husband, Bombay high court said she should not be thrown out of her Andheri flat without following the due process of law.
A division bench of Justice Kamalkishor Tated  and Justice Sarang Kotwal dismissed the woman’s plea that she be declared the owner of the house considering that she could not produce any proof. However, the judges considering the factors that the woman had been staying in the flat since 1996 and has been paying the maintenance charges for it as well, and that the husband has not made any objection against her possession, granted a temporary relief to the woman.
“The husband did not take any steps when the wife had taken possession of the flat. She is paying the maintenance charges of the flat and he had not taken any objection,” said the judges. “In this view of the matter, it is only just and proper to grant limited protection to the woman, who is an old lady today and has been residing in the suit premises since past many years. Therefore, she cannot be dispossessed without following the due process of law.”
The couple had married in 1969 and have two daughters. The woman had moved the family court in Bandra seeking to be declared owner of the house. She said she had gone to Dubai to earn a living. In 1974, the couple had booked the Andheri flat for Rs 25,000. She said that though the flat had been purchased in her husband’s name, it was in fact the money that she sent from her earnings in Dubai that was used to buy it. In 1996, on her return from Dubai, she had broken open the lock of the flat and begun to live there.
In 2009, the family court dismissed her application and she filed an appeal before the high court. The court agreed that the woman had not produced any evidence in the form of bank statements or records to show that she had sent the money.
“There is not a single document in favour of the woman to prove her case that she is the real owner of the flat or that she had contributed either exclusively or partially in the purchase of the apartment,” the judges said.

“There is no evidence to show that she took any part, either in negotiations or acquiring or paying the price of the flat. As observed by the (trial court), the flat stands in the name of the husband and the receipt for paying the purchase price also stands in his name.”