Bombay HC partially overturns family court order in divorce dispute over matrimonial home possession

MUMBAI: In a divorce battle spanning two cities, the Bombay High Court on Thursday partially overturned a Mumbai family court order. The court observed that the man himself moved out of the matrimonial home in 2022, two decades into the marriage, and thus his plea not to dispossess him could not be granted.

"Unless a person is already in possession of the premises, such a prayer seeking an order of restraint would not be maintainable," Justice Manjusha Deshpande of the High Court said in her order.The couple married in Delhi. She filed for divorce before the family court in New Delhi, and he did the same in Mumbai, both in 2022. The wife, who continues to reside in the matrimonial home, petitioned the High Court to challenge a slew of interim reliefs granted to the estranged husband by the Mumbai family court in a detailed order, including his plea not to dispossess him from the house that he said he owns.The fact of his dispossession is established from his own statements made in the interim application, which is supported by the affidavits of the persons in whose presence the belongings were removed, the High Court said. Hence, the family court in Bandra, Mumbai, could not have granted him the relief "in view of the unequivocal statement of the (husband) himself that he shifted along with his children in February 2022 itself, and his belongings and furniture were removed on 23 January 2025.

" One child is now a major.

Justice Deshpande, sitting singly, said though the husband is "admittedly the owner of the house in view of his own averments, he has already shifted along with his children to his father’s residence, therefore, I do not find any favour in the contention... that he is still in possession of the matrimonial home."The wife, through her counsel Prabhjit Jauhar, argued that she would suffer emotional and mental distress if he is allowed possession.

Claiming she needed therapy, she cited doctor's reports before the family court suggesting the court refrain from passing an order in his favour. The husband also requested an inventory of his possessions in the house, claiming they were removed "behind his back" and he was restrained from entering and reinstalling the articles.

Her claim before the courts was that she merely tried to send furniture for polishing, but he claimed she was dispossessing it and stored it in one of his family’s other flats.After hearing senior counsel Atul Damle for the husband, the High Court said, "The family court rightly held that such recommendations exceed the scope of duty of a Doctor of giving professional opinion" and added the family court "rightly refused to take into consideration the medical opinion of the psychologist and has passed an order of appointment of Court Commissioner to conduct the inventory of all the furniture, fixtures, and household articles in the matrimonial home.

" The High Court upheld the commissioner’s appointment and said the visit should be in the presence of both sides and their lawyers.The husband also contended that he only temporarily moved out for his children’s sake and had he really abandoned his matrimonial house, there was no reason for him to continue to pay the expenses of maintenance, property tax, gas connection, etc. The Delhi High Court last December, in an interim order, reduced the monthly maintenance awarded by the Delhi family court from Rs 29 lakh to Rs 2.5 lakh per month.