MUMBAI: A top executive of realty firm who was locked out of his matrimonial home by his wife, a senior officer of a private bank, won reprieve from the Bombay high court . Justice Bharati Dangre declined the woman's plea to restrain him from entering the couple’s jointly-owned flat in a Wadala high rise. The man pays the EMI for one of the two flats that was amalgamated, while the EMI for the other is paid by his wife.

“There is no denial of the joint ownership of the husband in these flats. It is the case of the wife that the flats have been joined and being used as a single dwelling and the husband cannot be restrained from entering into the said dwelling unit,” said Justice Dangre, upholding the order of the family court. “The husband is at liberty to reside in the house by making appropriate arrangement... the wife would cooperate with the husband to reside in the matrimonial house,” the judge said.

The HC further refused to hike the amount to be paid by the man towards maintenance of their three-year-old child—the family court had ordered Rs 40,000 per month while the wife had demanded Rs 1.9 lakh per month. The court held that the expenses claimed were exaggerated and based on “fictitious” figures. “This court is of the clear opinion that the demand made is an exaggerated projection of the day-to-day requirements for a child of three to four years. An amount of Rs 40,000 is sufficient. Whatsoever more is required for the child’s maintenance can be contributed by the mother who is also equally responsible for the upbringing of a child and taking care of her day-to- day expenditure... and is in fact, earning a handsome salary. In such circumstances, it would be unjust if the husband is burdened with the sole responsibility of bearing the expenses of the child,” the court said. While there was another dispute about about the school where the child should be admitted, the couple agreed to take a decision on the issue by consent.

The couple had got married in March 2011 and a year later invested in two flats for which they applied separate loans. The couple’s child was born in 2014, but disputes between them led to criminal cases being filed, including a non-cognizable complaint over handling of TV remote control. The woman claimed that her family had spent over Rs 1 crore on the wedding and given Rs 50 lakh in cash, but there were persistent demands for dowry. In August 2016, the man filed for divorce, following which he claims his wife lodged a complaint of assault against him. He claimed that when he returned home one day, a new padlock was installed and his wife refused to let him inside the house. He approached the family court to appoint a commissioner to partition the flat, while the woman filed a plea seeking to restrain him from entering the apartment. The family court refused to prohibit the husband’s entry in the house, but restrained him from creating third-party rights till the petition was disposed of.

