Pinnacle Court dismisses wife s plea to live in luxury home With turn away husband

The Supreme Court rejected the pleas of socialite Poonam Jaidev Shroff, engaged in a bitter matrimonial dispute with her industrialist husband Jaidev Shroff, that she be either permitted to live with her estranged husband in their posh matrimonial home in Mumbai or be paid Rs 35.37 Lakhs per month for staying out on rent. A bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai said: "We have no hesitation in observing that the conduct of the respondent wife in firstly not choosing any house as per her choice and secondly, in rejecting all the properties, which have been identified by the architect, only on the ground that they are not similar and therefore, not in accordance with the order dated March 6, 2020, to say the least is unreasonable".

In March 2020, the top court had directed the Bombay High Court registry to engage an architect to find an appropriate house in areas like Pali Hill-Bandra in Mumbai for socialite, who is in the middle of bitter matrimonial battle with her industrialist husband Jaidev Shroff. "As many as 17 properties have been listed on the list sent along with the communication dated February 3, 2021. However, vide communication dated February 10, 2021, it was informed on behalf of the respondent wife that none of the properties shown in the list were similar to the said house," the bench said. “In our view, to stretch the word ‘similar' as used in the order dated March 6, 2020, to be totally identical to the said house would be unrealistic. It will be difficult to find a house identical to the said house having the same area, the same facilities, and the same luxuries." “The word ‘similar' has to be construed as providing the same degree of luxury and comfort as is available in the said house. We have no hesitation in observing that the conduct of the respondent-wife in firstly not choosing any house as per her choice and secondly, in rejecting all the properties, which have been identified by the Architect, only on the ground that they are not similar and therefore, not in accordance with the order..., to say the least, is unreasonable,” Justice Gavai said in the order Senior advocate AM Singhvi, representing the husband, had said that his client was willing to pay the rent and would not like to pay cash in lieu of the rent. Mr Singhvi had said he had offered Rs 90 crore towards the full and final settlement of the divorce dispute, but it was not agreed upon. The top court finally did not grant an alternate prayer seeking Rs 35.37 lakh maintenance per month.