‘Can't ignore preservation concerns as Mumbai grows': HC directs MMRCL to restore heritage feature of JN Petit Institute
A division bench of Justices Mahesh S Sonak and Jitendra S Jain, on July 10, directed the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) to abide by its assurance to reconstruct a fallen limestone finial, a heritage feature that adorned a portion of the said historic building situated at Dadabhai Naoroji (DN) Road. The finial is an architectural ornamental and decorative feature, usually crafted from limestone and often placed on the top of structure.
The plea claimed that despite having renovated the building in 2014-15 to its earlier glory, the finial in question collapsed on August 25, 2017. The MMRCL, however, said that it had taken due precautions during the work.
This came after the MMRCL made a statement that without prejudice to its rights and contentions and without accepting any liability, it has agreed to reconstruct at its own expense one of the limestone finials that earlier formed part of the building.
'There can be no doubt that the protection and preservation of the petitioners' building is a must. Whilst the march of development and infrastructural projects cannot be halted in a city like Mumbai, such a march cannot be permitted to run roughshod over the concerns of preserving and maintaining heritage buildings for posterity,' the court said.
The court noted that the respondent authorities, including MMRCL and Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) represented by advocates Mayur Khandeparkar and Kavita N Solunke, respectively, must conduct their activities by ensuring they don't harm or unduly destroy heritage structures.
'There are cases where such Heritage Areas or Structures are irreversibly harmed or destroyed, and the authorities responsible for such destruction or those whose lack of oversight caused it often plead fait accompli (something that already happened and can't be changed). This conduct cannot be tolerated,' the high court added.
The high court recorded MMRCL's statement suggesting that the Metro tunnel's alignment was not directly under the Petit building and the tracks ran approximately 4 to 5 metres away horizontally and around 25 metres below the ground level from the building.
The J N Petit building is a Grade-II A heritage structure constructed in the Neo-Gothic Revival style in 1898 and was conferred with the UNESCO Award of Distinction for Cultural Heritage Conservation in 2015.
The Jamsetji Nusserwanji Petit Trust said the building has a reading room and a library housing nearly 1 lakh books, including 2,400 rare books and 12 manuscripts, some of which date back to the 17th century, as per the judgment.
The high court directed the petitioner Trust to fully cooperate for the reconstruction of the finial and to obtain prior permissions from the concerned authorities, including heritage bodies, for such restoration. The MMRCL shall complete restoration within eight months of obtaining approvals.
'We find it difficult to accept the petitioners' belated contention about some serious damage to the petitioners' building on account of the works which, according to the petitioners, were completed in 2023,' the high court noted.
In September 2017, the high court had stayed excavation or tunnelling in the area around the heritage building. In November that year, it had ordered resumption of work after perusing the MMRCL's submission that they had completed precautionary measures recommended by a court-appointed Expert Committee.
The court observed that the building required protection and maintenance, however it was 'difficult to uphold the allegations of callousness or disregard to the concerns expressed by the petitioners regarding their Heritage Building.' It said the authorities had 'substantially complied' with recommendations of the Expert Panel.
Disposing of the plea, the bench said that at present, it was not appropriate to address concerns over damage to the building after the Metro line becomes operational as it would be 'too speculative,' and the Trust can seek remedies in future.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
13 hours ago
- Time of India
Divorce: Even if wife is earning husband is liable to pay maintenance money to her in this condition; HC
How did this divorce maintenance case start? November 28, 2012: The marriage took place. May 2015: The wife left the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents. June 2019: The husband filed a divorce petition in Bandra family court under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. September 29, 2021: The wife filed an interim application for maintenance. August 24, 2023: The family court decided to grant maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs 15,000 per month from October 1, 2022 till the disposal of the petition. What did the Bombay High Court say? The claim of the Petitioner has been falsified by the salary slips annexed to the reply affidavit filed by the Respondent herein for the months of April 2022 and September 2022, which discloses his net pay as Rs 1,51,284 and Rs 1,17,338 respectively. It also needs consideration that, though he claims that his parents are dependent on him, his own affidavit discloses that his father draws a pension of Rs 28,000 per month. Therefore, his parents are not financially dependent on him and in fact they must be contributing to the monthly maintenance of the family. I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent that the Petitioner has not disclosed his true income in the affidavit of assets and liabilities. The salary slips placed on record disclose his income above Rs 1,00,000. The Respondent-wife has disclosed her income to be Rs 18,000 per month from her salary as an Assistant Teacher working in a Convent School. Though it is claimed by the Petitioner that the Respondent-wife has an additional income from the interest of the Fixed Deposits, the interest is negligible. Even the income from tuition classes cannot be said to be a permanent source of income. Bombay High Court final judgement Judgement: 'I do not find the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is unreasonable or extreme. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Family Court does not warrant interference. In view of the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.' Supreme Court precedent applied in this case Status of the parties, social and financial. Reasonable needs of the wife and the dependent children. Parties' individual qualifications and employment statuses. Independent income or assets owned by the applicant. Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home. Any employment sacrifices made for responsibilities. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife. Financial capacity of the husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities. How did Bombay High Court apply the Supreme Court precedent in the present case? In the present case though the wife is earning, the said income is not sufficient for her own maintenance since she has to travel daily a long distance for her job. She is staying with her parents which she cannot stay indefinitely. Because of her meager earning, she is constrained to stay in the house of her brother along with her parents causing inconvenience and hardship to all of them. In such an income she is not in a position to live a decent life. As against, it if compared against the Petitioner's income, his income is far more than the Respondent-wife's, with no financial responsibilities on him. Even assuming the certain expenses must be necessary for the maintenance of himself and the family members whom he is obliged to maintain, the amount that remains is sufficient enough to enable him to support the Respondent-wife as per the order passed by the Judge, Family Court at Bandra. Merely because the wife is earning, she cannot be deprived of the support from her husband with the same standard of living to which she is accustomed to in her matrimonial home. What is the significance of this judgement? On June 18, 2025, a husband lost a divorce maintenance case in the Bombay High Court as the court held that merely because the wife is earning, she cannot be deprived of the support from her husband, especially when it comes to maintaining the same standard of living she was accustomed to in her matrimonial husband argued that about three years into their marriage, things started to get tense. He alleged that she was throwing tantrums and treated him very badly. The husband also mentioned that he bought a new flat hoping it would be comfortable for her, but her attitude still did not change. She kept making demands that he just could not meet, which led him to file for divorce . Soon after the husband filed for divorce, the wife submitted a maintenance petition in high court while hearing the maintenance petition noted that the husband lives in a posh locality in Mumbai and his father also gets pension while the wife is a school teacher and lives with her parents who in turn live at their brother's Bombay High Court said: 'Because of her meager earning, she is constrained to stay in the house of her brother along with her parents causing inconvenience and hardship to all of them. In such an income she is not in a position to live a decent life. As against it, if compared against the Petitioner's (husband's) income, his income is far more than the Respondent-wife's, with no financial responsibilities on him.'The husband did not want to pay any maintenance money as he alleged that he might be earning a more than her but he had necessary expenses like looking after his senior citizen parents. The Bombay High Court agreed with his argument but said that the maintenance amount that the court ordered him to pay isn't so big that it will lead to financial issues for Bombay High Court also applied the eight factors laid down by the Supreme Court in the Pravin Kumar Jain V/s. Anju Jain ((2025) 2 SCC 227) case for calculating maintenance money amount in divorce cases. These eight factors helped the court to determine how much money the husband should pay as out the details below to know more about why this husband lost the case and the wife won. The legal arguments and insights from this case can help you in similar to the order of the Bombay High Court dated June 18, 2025, here are the details:The husband challenged this order and filed an appeal in the Bombay High Bombay High Court said:(No part of the judgement is changed and everything is as per what the court said)The Bombay High Court said: 'There is a huge disparity in the income of the Petitioner and the Respondent, which cannot be compared. The Respondent-wife is certainly entitled to be maintained with the same standard of living as she was accustomed to before their separation. While determining the quantum of maintenance, the considerations that are required to be taken into consideration are the income of the respective parties; their age; their responsibilities; their reasonable needs; necessities and income derived from other sources, if any.'The Bombay High Court said: 'A useful reference can be made to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Pravin Kumar Jain V/s. Anju Jain. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this judgment has once again reiterated the guidelines for fixing the amount of maintenance. Though it is observed that there cannot be a strict guidelines or fixed formula, but referring to the earlier judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has provided the factors to be looked into while granting maintenance, which reads thus:The Bombay High Court said: 'The factors have been laid down on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh V/s. Neha and Anr. 2 as well as Kiran Jyot Maini V/s. Anish Pramod Patel.3 Applying the above factors to the fact of the present case, the wife needs to be granted maintenance from the income of the husband since her own income is insufficient for her maintenance.'The Bombay High Court said:ET Wealth Online has asked various lawyers about what might be the significance of this judgement, here's what they said:The Court, reaffirmed that mere employment of the wife does not absolve the husband of his statutory obligation to provide for her sustenance, especially where her earnings are insufficient to maintain a standard of living commensurate with that enjoyed during the subsistence of the matrimonial ruling highlights that the principle of maintenance is not predicated solely on income but rather on the holistic assessment of the respective financial capacities of the parties, their standard of living, and reasonable importantly, the Court came down heavily on the suppression of material facts and misstatement of income by the Petitioner-husband, who had disclosed a drastically understated figure in his affidavit of assets and liabilities, which was palpably contradicted by salary slips placed on record by the judgment reinforces the guidelines set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for grant of maintenance. Merely because a wife is working and having income is not sufficient for a husband to disclaim his liability to pay maintenance. For grant of maintenance, all the factors must be considered with the principle objective of maintaining the same standard of living that the wife was maintaining with the judgment reiterates the stand of the Supreme Court that even if the wife is educated and has an earning job , she is entitled to maintenance if her income is not sufficient to maintain the standard of living . This is a very significant ruling from the perspective of men. It raises alarming questions surrounding gender equality rights & men's rights. A rising trend of transferring all assets to parents before marriage is seen due to such judicial norms being mandated in the Court while ascertaining the interim maintenance to be paid to wife will consider these additional factors in addition to income earned by husband:(a) Income of the parents of the husband(b) Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home.(c) Reasonable needs of the wife.(d) Assets owned by the the position taken by Bombay High Court, the husband must be very conscious while appealing an interim order of maintenance and must not base the challenge only on the income earned by him and his wife. Husbands while litigating the maintenance orders must look into the income of the family as a whole and the standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home.
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Indian Express
‘Can't ignore preservation concerns as Mumbai grows': HC directs MMRCL to restore heritage feature of JN Petit Institute
The Bombay High Court emphasised on Thursday that while the city's development march cannot be halted, it cannot run roughshod over concerns for the preservation and maintenance of historic or heritage structures. In doing so, the high court disposed of a plea by trustees of the over 100-year-old J N Petit Institute's heritage building in the Fort area of South Mumbai that raised apprehensions of damage due to works for the Metro Line-3 project. A division bench of Justices Mahesh S Sonak and Jitendra S Jain, on July 10, directed the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) to abide by its assurance to reconstruct a fallen limestone finial, a heritage feature that adorned a portion of the said historic building situated at Dadabhai Naoroji (DN) Road. The finial is an architectural ornamental and decorative feature, usually crafted from limestone and often placed on the top of structure. The plea claimed that despite having renovated the building in 2014-15 to its earlier glory, the finial in question collapsed on August 25, 2017. The MMRCL, however, said that it had taken due precautions during the work. This came after the MMRCL made a statement that without prejudice to its rights and contentions and without accepting any liability, it has agreed to reconstruct at its own expense one of the limestone finials that earlier formed part of the building. 'There can be no doubt that the protection and preservation of the petitioners' building is a must. Whilst the march of development and infrastructural projects cannot be halted in a city like Mumbai, such a march cannot be permitted to run roughshod over the concerns of preserving and maintaining heritage buildings for posterity,' the court said. The court noted that the respondent authorities, including MMRCL and Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) represented by advocates Mayur Khandeparkar and Kavita N Solunke, respectively, must conduct their activities by ensuring they don't harm or unduly destroy heritage structures. 'There are cases where such Heritage Areas or Structures are irreversibly harmed or destroyed, and the authorities responsible for such destruction or those whose lack of oversight caused it often plead fait accompli (something that already happened and can't be changed). This conduct cannot be tolerated,' the high court added. The high court recorded MMRCL's statement suggesting that the Metro tunnel's alignment was not directly under the Petit building and the tracks ran approximately 4 to 5 metres away horizontally and around 25 metres below the ground level from the building. The J N Petit building is a Grade-II A heritage structure constructed in the Neo-Gothic Revival style in 1898 and was conferred with the UNESCO Award of Distinction for Cultural Heritage Conservation in 2015. The Jamsetji Nusserwanji Petit Trust said the building has a reading room and a library housing nearly 1 lakh books, including 2,400 rare books and 12 manuscripts, some of which date back to the 17th century, as per the judgment. The high court directed the petitioner Trust to fully cooperate for the reconstruction of the finial and to obtain prior permissions from the concerned authorities, including heritage bodies, for such restoration. The MMRCL shall complete restoration within eight months of obtaining approvals. 'We find it difficult to accept the petitioners' belated contention about some serious damage to the petitioners' building on account of the works which, according to the petitioners, were completed in 2023,' the high court noted. In September 2017, the high court had stayed excavation or tunnelling in the area around the heritage building. In November that year, it had ordered resumption of work after perusing the MMRCL's submission that they had completed precautionary measures recommended by a court-appointed Expert Committee. The court observed that the building required protection and maintenance, however it was 'difficult to uphold the allegations of callousness or disregard to the concerns expressed by the petitioners regarding their Heritage Building.' It said the authorities had 'substantially complied' with recommendations of the Expert Panel. Disposing of the plea, the bench said that at present, it was not appropriate to address concerns over damage to the building after the Metro line becomes operational as it would be 'too speculative,' and the Trust can seek remedies in future.
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Hindustan Times
HC seeks BMC's response over lack of crematoriums for crematoriums
MUMBAI: Raising concerns over the lack of an electric crematorium for pet animals in the city, the Bombay high court on Wednesday sought the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's (BMC) response to the issue within two weeks. Bombay High Court at Fort File photo (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT PHOTO) Following a news report highlighting the delay in setting up of the crematoriums in Deonar, the division bench of chief justice Alok Aradhe and justice Sandeep V Marne had initiated a suo moto public interest litigation (PIL) on June 11. Taking note of the situation, the bench observed that technical difficulties were the reason for the delay. In 2018, the BMC announced its plan to set up three pet crematoriums in Malad, Mahalaxmi and Deonar. The facilities were supposed to be set up by 2024, likely powered by a PNG incinerator and provide space for at least five animals at a time. The PNG-powered crematorium in Malad was inaugurated in September 2023. The counsel for the BMC informed the court that a fully functional electric crematorium, with a carrying capacity of 50kg, was also established at Mahalaxmi. The one at Deonar, however, was delayed and set to be opened in May 2025. The project would be further delayed due to the monsoon. BMC's counsel sought time from the court to furnish its reply on the progress of the work.
