18 yrs after separation, HC rejects wife’s claim to husband’s property | mumbai | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Sep 20, 2017-Wednesday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

18 yrs after separation, HC rejects wife’s claim to husband’s property

Eighteen years after couple parted ways over dispute of ownership of flat at plush Peddar Road, the Bombay High Court has ruled that the husband is the sole owner of the flat. The couple, now in their seventies, married in November 1959, reports Urvi Mahajani.

mumbai Updated: Feb 18, 2010 01:36 IST
Urvi Mahajani

Eighteen years after couple parted ways over dispute of ownership of flat at plush Peddar Road, the Bombay High Court has ruled that the husband is the sole owner of the flat. The couple, now in their seventies, married in November 1959.

Following a dispute over the flat at Anand Darshan Society, they got divorce in 1993.

The wife, a Christian who had converted to Hinduism after marriage, had approached the high court challenging the order of the family court rejecting her claim of share in her husband’s properties.

In January 2003, the family court rejected her application, seeking share in certain properties standing in the sole name of her former husband.

Anand and Rohini (names changed) got married in 1959 after three years of courtship. After marriage, they jointly purchased a flat at Worli measuring 513 sq ft for Rs 13,000.

Rohini, a dance teacher, claimed that since Anand had financial constraints, she paid from her savings. She claimed that the flat was purchased in Anand’s name since they did not want to purchase the flat in her maiden name. The flat was transferred to her on June 23, 1968.

In June 1970, the couple shifted to flat on eighth floor of Anand Darshan Society on Peddar Road.

The couple had shifted from the eighth floor to the seventh floor in the same building. They exchanged with the family residing there and received additional Rs 1 lakh for their eighth floor flat, claimed Rohini. From the additional money received, they purchased properties at Pune and Panchgini, said Rohini.

She said that only in March 1989 she discovered that Anand had not joined her name as joint owner of the flat. This caused a rift in their relationship.

Anand denied the allegations stating that Rohini had not contributed any amount for purchasing either of the flats – Worli and Peddar Road. Besides, he claimed that it was Rohini’s financial condition which was not stable. Rohini used to earn Rs 5 per session. He contended that Rohini was aware that she is made a nominee in the flat. Besides, he denied having purchased properties at Pune and Panchgini.

After their marriage was dissolved, Anand gave Rohini a flat at Ghatkopar, where she is now staying. Division bench of Justice S.A. Bobade and Justice S.J. Kathawalla observed that, “The appellant (wife) is not entitled to claim any share in the plots allegedly purchased by the respondent (husband).”