Right to Reside in Matrimonial Home: Supreme Court’s Ruling in Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar vs. MHADA

The Supreme Court of India recently adjudicated the case of Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar vs. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority (MHADA), a significant ruling concerning a woman’s right to reside in her matrimonial home. The case revolved around a dispute over residential rights following the redevelopment of a family property and the legal mechanisms available for a married woman to claim residence in a property owned by her husband’s family.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar, sought to enforce her right to reside in her matrimonial home, located in flats numbered 601 and 602 in a redeveloped building in Mumbai. The building, originally owned by her husband’s family, was demolished and reconstructed under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act). During this redevelopment, residents were required to move to temporary accommodations. The appellant’s husband, respondent No. 8, moved with his family to a transit home, while the appellant remained in the old building with her two minor children.

The dispute arose when MHADA issued a notice under Section 95A of the MHADA Act, mandating eviction from the old building for redevelopment purposes. Subsequently, the new building, named Om Apartment, was constructed. The appellant claimed a right to be rehoused in the redeveloped building under statutory rehabilitation provisions.

Legal Issues Raised

Whether the appellant had a legal right to reside in flats 601 and 602 under the MHADA Act.
Whether MHADA, the builder, and her husband were legally obligated to provide her with accommodation in the redeveloped building.
Whether the Bombay High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition on grounds of jurisdiction.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant, appearing in person, argued:

She was evicted from her matrimonial home under Section 95A of the MHADA Act based on a statutory notice, and thus had a legal right to be rehabilitated in the new building.
As her judicial separation decree was overturned by the Bombay High Court in 2001, she retained her status as the legally wedded wife of respondent No. 8 and should be entitled to reside in the family property.
The builder and MHADA were obligated to rehouse her in flats 601 and 602, as she had vacated the property under statutory compulsion.
Her right to residence was not merely a matrimonial issue but a statutory entitlement under the redevelopment scheme.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents, including MHADA, the builder, and her husband, countered:

The redevelopment was carried out under the provisions of the MHADA Act, which only guaranteed rehabilitation to property owners and legal occupiers.
The appellant’s husband and his family had already received their allocated share of 1100 sq. ft. in the redeveloped building, out of which significant portions had been sold to the builder.
The appellant was being offered an alternative accommodation in Flat No. 101, measuring 379 sq. ft., which was the legally designated share for her husband.
The writ petition was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, as matrimonial disputes should be adjudicated in civil or family courts.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Supreme Court observed:

While the appellant was evicted under a statutory notice, her right to residence was not protected under the MHADA Act but fell within the purview of matrimonial law.
Her claim for rehabilitation could not be enforced against MHADA or the builder, as they had fulfilled their obligations under the redevelopment scheme.
The Bombay High Court correctly held that the writ petition was not maintainable and that the appellant should seek relief in civil or family court.
However, in exercising Article 142 powers, the Court directed that the appellant be given an option to accept Flat No. 101 as an alternative accommodation.

Key Directions Issued by the Supreme Court

The Court, while dismissing the appeal, issued specific directions:

MHADA was required to confirm within two months whether Flat No. 101 was free for allocation to respondent No. 8.
The appellant was given one month to decide whether she would accept the alternative accommodation.
Respondent No. 8 was directed to provide an affidavit ensuring that the flat would not be encumbered and that the appellant’s possession would be undisturbed.
If the appellant opted for the flat, she was to vacate her current residence within four months.
If she rejected the flat, she was free to approach the family court for further relief but could not claim rights over Flat No. 101.
The husband was required to continue paying rent for the appellant’s existing accommodation for eight months or until she moved to the allocated flat.

Conclusion and Legal Implications

The judgment clarifies that a wife’s right to residence in her matrimonial home is a separate legal issue from statutory rehabilitation under redevelopment laws. The ruling reinforces that disputes related to matrimonial rights should be adjudicated in family or civil courts rather than through a writ petition. However, the Court’s invocation of Article 142 to provide equitable relief ensures that the appellant is not left homeless.

The case sets an important precedent for women seeking residential rights in matrimonial property, particularly in the context of redevelopment schemes, and underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing statutory obligations with equitable relief.

Petitioner Name: Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar.
Respondent Name: Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Place Of Incident: Mumbai.
Judgment Date: 27-04-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Aishwarya Atul Pusal vs Maharashtra Housing Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 27-04-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category