Supreme Court: Wife’s Right to Matrimonial Home Cannot Be Enforced Through Writ—Remedy Lies Before Civil or Family Court
Case Name: Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 7231 of 2012
Date of Judgment: 27 April 2020
Bench: Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose
Held: The Supreme Court held that a married woman’s right to reside in her matrimonial home cannot be enforced through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. While recognizing that a wife has a legitimate right to residence in her matrimonial home, such right flows from family law and not from the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. Consequently, the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority (MHADA) and the builder had no statutory obligation to rehouse the appellant under the redevelopment scheme once the husband and his co-owners were accommodated. The Court affirmed that the appropriate remedy lies before the Family Court or a Civil Court, which has fact-finding jurisdiction over such disputes.
Summary: The appellant sought to enforce her right to reside in her matrimonial home, consisting of flats in a redeveloped building (“Om Apartment”) at Shivaji Park, Mumbai. She contended that having vacated her former residence under a statutory notice issued by MHADA during redevelopment, she was entitled to re-allotment as a statutory occupier. The Bombay High Court dismissed her writ petition, holding that her grievance pertained to matrimonial rights, not a statutory entitlement under the 1976 Act. Upholding this view, the Supreme Court held that the right to residence in the matrimonial home arises under personal and family law principles not under the housing statute and cannot be invoked through writ proceedings. Nevertheless, invoking Article 142, the Court directed that Flat No. 101 in Om Apartment, measuring 379 sq. ft., be offered to the appellant if available and free of encumbrance, subject to her acceptance and her husband’s undertaking not to disturb her possession.
Decision: Appeal disposed of. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s finding that the writ remedy was not maintainable but exercised its equitable powers to allow the appellant an option to occupy Flat No. 101 in Om Apartment under specific conditions. The appellant was granted eight months to vacate her current rented accommodation, with liberty to pursue her broader matrimonial claims before the appropriate Family or Civil Court. No order as to costs.