Ex-wife denied Worli flat despite claims she paid for it

Fifty years after their marriage and 17 years after their divorce, the Bombay High Court has dismissed the claims made by a wife seeking the right to her husband’s property. It pointed out that she was only her husband’s nominee to the flats he owned.

Veer and Ria (names changed) had an inter-religious marriage on November 15, 1959 and the latter converted to Hinduism from Christianity. In June 1993, however, the couple procured a divorce from the family court of Mumbai.

Ria at the time of the divorce had filed another petition seeking an equal share in and joint ownership of three properties owned by Veer in Mumbai (Pedder Road), Pune and Panchgani. She stated that she was “a part of the settlement which had been arrived at, at the time of the acquisition of the immovable properties,” and also cited a tripartite agreement made in 1968.

Ria’s case stood on the ground that prior to their marriage, she had paid Rs 13,000 as consideration for a 513 sq ft flat in Worli which they had decided to buy together. The receipt for the payment was however in Veer’s name because she wanted to take on a Hindu identity after marriage. She told the court that this flat was later exchanged for a family friend’s bigger flat at Pedder Road. Within the Pedder Road complex, they then shifted to another flat which was even bigger. With the money that Veer earned from selling their old flat the family invested in properties in Pune and Panchgani.

She claimed that she realised only in 1989 that she had no holding in the Pedder Road flat. This created a rift large enough to lead to divorce. Veer, however, denied all these statements and countered that she never contributed towards the Worli flat. She was, he pointed out, a dance teacher who was paid a mere Rs 5 per session at the time and in no position to pay for a flat. He also denied having purchased property in Panchgani.

The court observed that Ria had produced nothing to show that she had paid Rs 13,000 towards the Worli flat. All she furnished was a note from her deceased mother stating in Konkani that she had given her daughter Rs 5300. The court, however, said that this could not be corroborated. Also, the tripartite agreement Ria had cited clearly stated that she was a nominee. Thus the court upheld the family court’s order of 1993 denying Ria any rights to her estranged husband’s property.