Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar V - S Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Others

    Uploaded by

    Chanchal Kumawat
    121 views2 pages
    1) Aishwarya sought to enforce her right to reside in her matrimonial home after filing for divorce from her husband in 1997. 2) The building they lived in was reconstructed and she was required to move to temporary accommodation, but her husband did not allow her to live with him. 3) The court ruled that while she has a right to reside in her matrimonial home as a married woman, this right is independent of the statutory housing scheme and does not give her an independent claim over the property allocated to her husband under that scheme. 4) However, her right to reside in her matrimonial home as a married woman is protected under other statutes like the Hindu

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    AISHWARYA ATUL PUSALKAR V_S MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Aishwarya sought to enforce her right to reside in her matrimonial home after filing for divorce from her husband in 1997. 2) The building they lived in was reconstructed and she was required to move to temporary accommodation, but her husband did not allow her to live with him. 3) The court ruled that while she has a right to reside in her matrimonial home as a married woman, this right is independent of the statutory housing scheme and does not give her an independent claim over the property allocated to her husband under that scheme. 4) However, her right to reside in her matrimonial home as a married woman is protected under other statutes like the Hindu

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    121 views2 pages

    Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar V - S Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Others

    Uploaded by

    Chanchal Kumawat
    1) Aishwarya sought to enforce her right to reside in her matrimonial home after filing for divorce from her husband in 1997. 2) The building they lived in was reconstructed and she was required to move to temporary accommodation, but her husband did not allow her to live with him. 3) The court ruled that while she has a right to reside in her matrimonial home as a married woman, this right is independent of the statutory housing scheme and does not give her an independent claim over the property allocated to her husband under that scheme. 4) However, her right to reside in her matrimonial home as a married woman is protected under other statutes like the Hindu

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    AISHWARYA ATUL PUSALKAR V/S MAHARASHTRA HOUSING

    AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

    Definition of Shared Household and Rights of a Married Woman

    Date of Judgement :- 27/04/2020


    Summary Prepared by :- Chanchal Kumawat, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies,
    Delhi

    Brief Facts :-
    Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar, the appellant seeks to enforce her right to reside in her matrimonial
    home. In 1997, Aishwarya pusalkar and her husband, Atul shivram pusalkar filed a divorce suit
    in Family Court which was rejected. The Building in which they were living before, Aishwarya,
    her husband, and her mother-in-law was named Usha. In between the divorce suit, a firm of
    builders BUILDARCH was given permission by the Mumbai Building Reforms and
    Reconstruction Board of reconstructing the residence into OM Apartments and in terms of the
    MHADA Act, 1976 they were required to shift to a transit or temporary accommodations.
    Aishwarya stayed in the Old building with her two sons and then MHADA issued a notice
    against her to vacate that place otherwise she will be charged with one year imprisonment or a
    maximum five thousand fine. Aishwarya then shifted to a temporary accommodation by the
    order of Bombay High Court, apartment rents were initially paid by the Builder but eventually
    had to be deducted from her husband. Aishwarya was demanding residence in 2 Flats of OM
    Apartments. In 2000, Bombay High Court finalized their Divorce hearing, which was after
    Aishwarya shifted to temporary accommodation.

    Issues Involved :-
    1. Her complaint was that her husband did not allow her to live in her matrimonial
    accommodation while the divorce proceedings were ongoing and not finalized.
    2. Being the legally wedded wife of Atul, Aishwarya had a right to reside along with her husband
    in the temporary alternate accommodation and permanent alternate accommodation allotted to
    him either along with the remaining co-owners or independently.
    3.Her case is that it is composite statutory obligation of MHADA, the builder and her husband to
    rehouse her in her matrimonial home

    Judgement :-
    When a builder fulfills his obligation by migrating the original owners to the redeveloped portion
    under such a scheme, a woman married into that family is not entitled to use the High Court's
    writ jurisdiction to enforce her right to a matrimonial home under the provisions of the said
    statute if her husband refuses to allow her to live in the allocated portion. She has no
    independent claim to title or interest in the property that is based on that statute. Her claim to
    the right to live in her marriage home is being utilized as collateral for her husband's legal right
    to be rehoused or rehabilitated in the new structure.But her right to reside in her matrimonial
    home stands detached from and is independent of the statutory scheme under the said Act. Her
    right to reside in her matrimonial home does not flow from the 1976 Act.
    A married woman is entitled to live, subsequent to her marriage, with the rest of her family
    members on the husband’s side, in case it is a joint-property. If she resides in an
    accommodation as an independent family unit with her husband and children, the matrimonial
    home would be that residential unit. This right is embedded in her right as a wife. It is implicit
    under the provisions of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 in
    situations that statute is applicable.
    The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has recognised the concept
    of “shared household” in terms of Section 2(s) of this statute. Alienating an immovable asset to
    defeat the right of a victim lady under the said Act can constitute domestic violence, coming,
    inter-alia, within the ambit of the expression “economic abuse” under Section 3(iv) of 2005 Act.

    You might also like