No Right to Reside in Matrimonial Home Can Be Enforced Against Builder or Development Authority: SC
On 28th April 2020, the bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose of Hon’ble Supreme Court was hearing the appeal filed by a woman, who was claiming the right to reside in the homes allotted to her husband under the Maharastra Housing Area Development Act, 1976. But she was claiming the right against builders and Maharastra Area Development Authority to rehouse her.
The wife (appellant) was having rough relation with her husband and in-laws. The Maharastra Area & Development Authority (MHADA) demolished the house, for redevelopment, in which appellant stayed so on after her marriage along with husband and in-laws. The particular society was to be rebuild by the group of builders under the Maharastra Housing Area Development Act, 1976. As per the provision of the act all the occupants of the particular premises has to vacate the premises till the completion of redevelopment work. Following which the appellant was evicted from the old house along with her two minor sons on the notice of MHADA(under Section 95-A of the Maharastra Housing Area Development Act, 1976 ) since the appellant continued remain in the original building.
- Whether wife (appellant) can claim rights to rehouse against the builders or MHADA?
- Whether invoking writ jurisdiction against builder under the Article 226/32 of Constitution is reasonable?
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when a builder has his obligation by accommodating the original owner (that is husband) 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 under the Maharastra Housing Area Development Act, 1976 against builder or development authority. Further, the Hon’ble Court said that “Neither MHADA, nor builder can have any legal obligation to rehouse her..” The Court, however, suggested her to claim her right under the over relevant provision such as Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 or Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Further, the Hon’ble Court said that the remedies are available only in such provision and no remedy is available against a builder. Therefore, Supreme Court rejected her claims and suggested her to file suit under appropriate statue and in the family court where jurisdiction of petition lies.
Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar vs. Maharastra Housing and Area Development Authority SC Civil Appeal No. 7231/2012
Join us on:-