MUMBAI: A family court on Monday rejected a wife ’s interim plea seeking her estranged husband ’s removal from their Lokhandwala flat where she stays with him and their child, just because she pays the EMI (equated monthly installment to repay home loan).

The court, while ruling in favour of the man who pays Rs 90,000 a month for household expenses, said in the current day, it is difficult to ascertain who has contributed how much while purchasing any asset or discharging any liability. “If both contribute to the household, either this way or that way, a particular spouse cannot claim exclusive right, ownership or title in the household property, merely because either the property stands in her name or she has contributed financially,” said the judge.

The court also relied on the fact that both parties were shareholders and co-owners of the flat. It observed that in earlier times when only men used to go out to earn a livelihood, properties were generally purchased in the name of men. “Times have changed and now there is hardly any occupation where women's presence is not seen. So, in modern times like these, both the spouses work, earn and acquire assets out of their earnings,” said the judge.

The judge further said that an injunction can only be sought if the grounds relied upon are grave and weighty. Referring to the grounds mentioned by the woman, which she had dubbed as cruelty, the court said they were not serious enough to grant an injunction and order the husband’s ouster. “Not giving bath to a daughter cannot be a ground for the wife for excluding the husband from a property.

Similarly, his absent-mindedness of not removing the key from the keyhole while entering the house would be an unintended nuisance to the wife, but it cannot be a ground for throwing him out of the house.”

Among other reasons, the woman had claimed that her husband scolded the domestic help for drinking water untidily, left the child in the car while purchasing snacks, gave her lectures on parenting and did not lower the volume of the television.

The court referred to a Bombay high court judgment, which observed that if a husband shows negative treatment like disturbing the matrimonial life and jeopardizing the safety and security of the spouse and children, then such an interim injunction can be granted. “No such contention is raised in this application. On the contrary, the grounds mentioned show that this is the normal bickering which occurs in an ill-tuned family,” the court said. The court advised the parents to keep peace for the child’s sake until the petition is decided.

