In Brief
The wife in an acrimonious matrimonial dispute sought to reside in the shared matrimonial home or receive Rs. 35.37 lakhs per month as rent for alternative accommodation. The Court held that compelling the parties—with severely strained relations—to cohabit would be detrimental rather than beneficial. The Court interpreted 'similar' accommodation as providing equivalent luxury and comfort, not identical facilities. Rejecting all 17 properties identified by a court-appointed architect as unsuitable was deemed unreasonable. The interim maintenance previously granted was deemed adequate. The interlocutory applications were dismissed, though the husband was directed to pay rent if the wife chose alternative accommodation from the architect's list, capped at Rs. 30 lakhs monthly.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.