Top StoriesWife’s Right To Reside In Matrimonial Home Can’t Be Enforced Against Builder Or Development Authority Under Statutory Scheme : SC [Read Judgment] Mehal Jain28 April 2020 7:24 AMShare This – xWife’s right to reside in her matrimonial home does not flow from the MHADA Act 1976 Act, the court said.The Supreme Court on Monday held that when a builder has discharged his obligation by accommodating the original owners in the redeveloped portion, a lady married into that family would not be entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction to enforce her right to matrimonial home citing provisions of the relevant housing and area development statute, if her husband does not permit her to reside in…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court on Monday held that when a builder has discharged his obligation by accommodating the original owners in the redeveloped portion, a lady married into that family would not be entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction to enforce her right to matrimonial home citing provisions of the relevant housing and area development statute, if her husband does not permit her to reside in the allocated portion. Neither Maharashtra Area Development Authority nor the builder can have any further legal obligation to rehouse her, the bench observed.A bench comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose was deciding the appeal filed by a woman, seeking right to reside in the homes allotted to her husband under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act 1976.Facts of the case The appellant was having a strained relationship with her husband and in-laws. The building, which housed the matrimonial home in question, was demolished and redeveloped by a firm of builders under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. Under a scheme approved under the provisions of the said Act, during the period of redevelopment, the occupants were required to shift to transit or temporary accommodations. The appellant’s contention is that such exercise of redevelopment had been undertaken in pursuance of a statutory scheme framed under Section 79 of the 1976 Act which has provisions for rehabilitation of dishoused occupiers. The members of the family of the appellant after her marriage, comprising her husband and mother-in-law had shifted to the transit accommodation. The appellant-writ petitioner remained in the original building with her two minor sons. As the appellant had continued to reside in the old building, the MHADA authorities issued a notice upon her under Section 95-A of the 1976 Act, which stipulates that where the owner of a building submits a proposal for reconstruction of the building, it shall be binding on all the occupiers to vacate the premises.Following the notice of eviction, she shifted to another place. Later, she approached the Bombay High Court under writ petition seeking directions for residing in the houses allotted to her husband by MHADA after area re-development. The HC dismissed the plea stating that the rights cannot be enforced under Article 226.Conclusions of SCChallenging the Bombay HC verdict, the appellant came before the SC, as party-in-person.Her case was that since she was de-housed by MHADA by eviction notice in 2000, it was incumbent upon them to re-house her in the newly allotted matrimonial house.Disagreeing with this, the bench observed :”But in our opinion, when a builder has discharged his obligation by accommodating the original owners in the redeveloped portion as per such a scheme, a lady married into that family would not be entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to enforce her right to matrimonial home citing the provisions of the said statute, if her husband does not permit her to reside in the allocated portion” “She does not have any independent claim on title or interest to that property having its genesis in that statute. Her claim of right to reside in her matrimonial home is sought to be projected by her as collateral to the statutory right of her husband to be rehoused or rehabilitated in the new building. But her right to reside in her matrimonial home stands detached from and is independent of the statutory scheme under the said Act”, observed a bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose.The Court said that her right to reside in matrimonial house was not flowing from the 1976 Act; such rights ought to be enforced through other processes of law.”Neither MHADA, nor the builder can have any further legal obligation to rehouse her.. She is staking her claim as a constructive beneficiary of the redevelopment scheme. But our opinion is that the right she is seeking to enforce, though flows from a set of events on the basis of which her husband can claim rehabilitation, is actually anchored to an independent legal principle under the Family Law. We accept that she was an occupier under Section 2 (25) of the 1976 Act, but such occupier status was dependent upon her husband’s independent right as part owner of the property. Her right flowing from her matrimonial status cannot get diffused with her right of rehousing or rehabilitation under the statutory scheme. Her right to reside in her matrimonial home does not flow from the 1976 Act” The Apex Court opined that though she was dishoused as an occupier, claim of her rehousing is based on her status as wife. Accordingly, such claim has to be adjudicated upon by the Civil Court or the Family Court or any other forum the law may prescribe. Such right of the appellant cannot be diffused with the right of her husband under the building reforms and reconstruction law, whose family property, part of which he is the owner, has been reconstructed, articulated the Court. The top court recognised that a married woman is entitled to live, subsequent to her marriage, with 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. A Magistrate having jurisdiction under Section 19 of the said Act is empowered to pass a residence order to protect a victim of domestic violence from being removed from her shared household. But for a husband to compel his wife to live in a separate household, which is not her matrimonial home, an order from appropriate legal forum would be necessary. There cannot be forcible dishousing of a wife from her matrimonial home. However, these remedies are to be availed in other legal proceedings, and not in a writ petition against a builder.However, the Court passed some directions under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to secure her demand for alternate housing, and granted liberty to the appellant to initiate appropriate legal proceedings to establish her right to reside in her matrimonial home with her husband.Case DetailsTitle : Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development AuthorityCase No : Civil Appeal No. 7231/2012Click Here To Download Judgment[Read Judgment] Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Story
Lawyers file for legislative seats Lawyers file for legislative seats yer-legislators The House could see an increase from its current 31 law August 15, 2004 Regular News The number of lawyers in the Florida Senate will not increase by more than one after this year’s elections, and may even drop, but the Florida House could see an increase from its current 31 lawyer-legislators.According to state election and Florida Bar records, no lawyers filed for open Senate seats and only one registered to challenge an incumbent for the 22 seats on the ballot this year. (A trend in all legislative races was that few incumbents received serious challengers.) Of the nine lawyers currently in the Senate, four — Sen. Skip Campbell, D-Tamarac, Sen. Ron Klein, D-Boca Raton, Sen. Rod Smith, D-Gainesville, and Sen. Alex Villalobos, R-Miami — are at the midpoint of their four-year terms and are not on the ballot this year.Of the remaining five, two are unopposed and two have only minor party challengers.In the House, all 120 seats are on the ballot, and a handful of the 31 lawyers serving there, including House Speaker Johnnie Byrd, are not running again, mostly because of term limits. Overall, according to a tentative check of Bar records, there are 40 races where lawyers are running. Seventeen are incumbents who face no opposition and hence have been reelected, while three face only minor party candidates. One newcomer, Pinellas County sheriff and attorney Everett Rice, a Republican, was elected without opposition to the District 54 seat. Senate ResultsIn the Senate, Sen. Burt Saunders, R-Naples, in District 37, and Sen. Steven Geller, D-Hallandale Beach, in District 31, were reelected without opposition.Two others face only nominal opposition. Sen. Lisa Carlton, R-Osprey, is being challenged by Libertarian Charles Manhart in District 23. In District 25, Sen. Dave Aronberg, D-Greenacres, faces Independent Stan Smilan.(Aronberg did have a Republican challenger, who withdrew because of technical difficulties with his filing papers. Gov. Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Glenda Hood are considering having a special registration period if other Republicans are interested in filing, but no decision had been made at Bar News deadline, according to the state Division of Elections.)The only other attorney incumbent senator, Gary Siplin, D-Orlando, faces a primary challenge from Geraldine F. Thompson, with the winner taking on Republican Franklin Cardona in November.In District 39, attorney and former state Rep. Ron Saunders has filed to face incumbent Sen. Larcenia J. Bullard, D-Miami, and Sheila Chamberlain in the Democratic primary, with the winner taking on Republican Joseph E. Delaney in November. House RacesIn the House, 18 incumbents won reelection without any opposition, while several more had only minor party or write in adversaries. Unopposed were: • In District 16 Rep. Mark Harrison Mahon, R-Jacksonville. • In District 21, Rep. Joe Pickens, R-Palatka. • In District 37, Rep. David Simmons, R-Altamonte Springs. • In District 48, Rep. Gus Michael Bilirakis, R-Palm Harbor. • In District 59, Rep. Arthenia Lee Joyner, D-Tampa. • In District 63, Rep. Dennis A. Ross, R-Lakeland. • In District 73, Rep. Bruce Kyle, R-Ft. Myers. • In District 74, Rep. Jeff Kottkamp, R-Cape Coral. • In District 76, Rep. J. Dudley Goodlette, R-Naples. • In District 82, Rep. Joe Negron, R-Stuart. • In District 91, Rep. Ellen Bogdanoff, R-Ft. Lauderdale. (Rep. Bogdanoff has graduated from law school and taken the bar exam, but its still awaiting the exam results.) • In District 92, Rep. John P. “Jack” Seiler, D-Pompano Beach. • In District 100, Rep. Timothy Ryan, D-Dania Beach. • In District 104, Rep. Yolly Roberson, D- North Miami. • In District 105, Rep. Kenneth “Ken” Gottlieb, D-Miramar. • In District 106, Rep. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach. • In District 108, Rep. Phillip J. Brutus, D-North Miami. • In District 116, Rep. Marcelo Llorente, R-Miami. Incumbent attorney-legislators who face at least some opposition include: • In District 3, Rep. Holly Benson, R-Pensacola, who faces two write-in candidates, Andy Roberts and Therell D. Roberts. • In District 9, Rep. Loranne Ausley, D-Tallahassee, who faces Libertarian Mitch Covington. • In District 47, Rep. Kevin Ambler, R-Tampa, faces a primary challenge from Bill Bunkley, with the winner facing Libertarian Kim Snow. • In District 49, three Democrats have filed to challenge incumbent John “Q” Quinones, R-Kissimmee. They are Juan R. Bruno, Israel Mercado, and Ruth Ann “Lou” Raia. • In District 64, incumbent Rep. John Stargel, R-Lakeland, faces Democrat Bill Fenton. • In District 68, incumbent Rep. Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton, faces write-in Jon Kleiber. • In District 87, incumbent Rep. Adam Hasner, R-Delray Beach, will face the winner of a Democratic primary between Caravita Sansonia and Doug West. • In District 88, incumbent Rep. Susan Bucher, D-West Palm Beach, faces a primary challenge from Joel Silver, with the winner contesting Republican Ed Heeney and write-in Dan Gladstone in November. • In District 93, Incumbent Rep. Christopher Smith, D-Ft. Lauderdale, has a primary challenge from Sallie Tillman-Watson, with the winner facing write-in candidate Katherine DeBriere. • In District 111, incumbent Rep. Marco A. Rubio, R-Miami, faces Democrat Laura Leyva. • In District 115, incumbent Rep. Juan-Carlos Planas, R-Miami, faces write-in candidate Carlos Patino. Races involving lawyers where they are not the incumbent include: • District 25(parts of Volusia, Seminole, and Lake counties) where attorney Larry Metz is in a five-way Republican primary against Randy Wiseman, JoAnn Huggins, Alan Hays, and Johnnie Barto Smith. The winner faces write-in Eric Kleinbach in November. • District 28(part of Volusia County), where attorney and Republican Dorothy Hukill will face Democrat James War, Libertarian Ronald Cadby, and independent Richard Dombinsky on the November ballot. • District 31(part of Brevard County) where attorney and Republican Richard Whittington is challenging incumbent Mitch Needelman, R-Palm Bay, in the primary with the winner taking on Democrat Gerda Termitus on the November ballot. • In District 35(part of Orange County), attorney and Republican Dean Cannon faces Democrat Mike Deliz and write-in C.L. Williamson in November. • In District 39(part of Orange County), attorney and Democrat Tiffany Moore, along with Fritz Jackson Seide and Girardeau Nesbitt, Jr., have filed to challenge incumbent Rep. Bruce Antone, D-Orlando, in the primary, with the winner facing British Reformed Sectarian Party member Thomas Kelly in November. • In District 46(part of Pasco County), attorney and Republican John Stewart faces John Legg in the primary, with the winner taking on Democrat Dee Thomas in November. • In District 56, attorneys and Republicans Lisa DeVitto and Chris Tompkins are in a six-way primary with Deven Carty, Tim Mimbs, Frank Shannon, and Trey Taviesa. The winner faces a write-in candidate who filed as “Neil.” • In District 66(Hardee County and parts of Highlands and Polk counties), attorney and Democrat Robert Gray filed against incumbent Rep. Baxter Troutman, R-Winter Haven. • In District 69, (parts of Manatee and Sarasota counties), attorney and Democrat Steve Ellis filed against incumbent Rep. Donna Clarke, R-Sarasota. • In District 96(part of Broward County), attorney and Democrat Ari Porth faces Mark Weissman in the primary, with the winner taking on independent Michael Natale and write-in Daniel Nicoliason in November. • In District 114(part of Miami-Dade County), attorney Joel Bello is in a six-way Republican primary with Anitere Flores, Carlos Manrique, Victor Bao, Lius Orta, and Lisa Sacco. The winner takes on Democrat Millie Herrera in November.The primary election is August 31, and there is no runoff this year, so the candidate getting the plurality or majority wins the primary. The general election is November 2.