Wife no appendage of man, has identity and aspirations: Delhi HC

A wife is not a mere appendage of her husband and retains her individual entity and natural right to pursue her dreams and aspirations to be financially independent or do meaningful social work, the Delhi High Court has said.

Justice Najmi Waziri, while dealing with a petition by a landlord challenging the dismissal of his plea by a lower court for eviction of his tenant, also said that it cannot be assumed that the wife is subservient to her husband and is obliged to disclose to or share with her husband details of all her finances.

“A wife is neither an appendage of nor an adjunct to her husband. Her identity does not merge with or get subsumed in her husband’s identity. In law, she retains her individual entity. She retains her natural right to pursue her dreams, aspirations and the desire and need to be financially independent or otherwise do some meaningful social work,” observed the high court in a judgment on July 7.

Also read: SC on Manipur: Apex court cannot be used as platform to escalate tension

“There cannot be an assumption that the wife is subservient to her husband and is obliged to disclose to or share with her husband details of all her financials,” Justice Waziri said.

The petitioner landlord had sought eviction of the tenant from his shop in Sadar Bazar on the ground that his two married daughters were unemployed and wished to utilise the property for their commercial aspirations. The eviction petition was dismissed by the lower court on several grounds, including that the landlord’s wife ran a hotel and he did not disclose aspects of this business, and that the daughters were well settled in their matrimonial life and had never worked before.

Directing the tenant to vacate the property, the high court observed, “Idle luxuriation may not be the life-goal of many a woman or to be simply known as a rich man’s wife,” and under the law, a tenant can be evicted on the need of landlord’s dependants, which includes married daughters.

“There is a certain self-worth which a person acquires by running her or his own business/commercial enterprise, vocation and professional activity. This aspiration cannot be questioned in proceedings for eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises,” the court said.

Also Read: Delhi high court dismisses Sisodia’s bail plea in excise policy scam

Observing that a woman’s paternal or maternal home was like a sanctuary for her to seek refuge and married daughters had right over their parents’ property, the high court further said: “Ordinarily, for a daughter, irrespective of her matrimonial status, her paternal/maternal home is always a psychological, physical and emotional sanctuary, a place to which she can relate and return to freely, irrespective of how far she is geographically located from her parents. The law provides for eviction of a tenant on the need of dependants. Married daughters are included among dependents of their parents, for commercial/residential space.”

The court further observed that the status of financial well-being of a landlord or his wife and dependent children is not the test of bona fide requirement and what was to be seen was whether or not there was a suitable alternative accommodation available with the landlord for him to use or for providing the same to his daughters. The court held that in the present case the landlord had established a case for eviction of the tenant.

“The married daughters are dependent upon their father for space to start their business in Delhi. The dependency was not pleaded on the husbands. The petition is maintainable. The daughter’s need continues, so does the need of the petitioner,” the court added.

(With agency inputs)