The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of honoring undertakings given to the court and the consequences of breaching such undertakings.

1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith.

2. The Petitioner wife has challenged the order of the learned Family Court No.1 Pune vacating an injunction granted to her against dispossession in the premises in which she lived as a licensee. The Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 married on 21st April 2003. The Petitioner wife moved from Lucknow to Pune after her marriage. The husband and the wife resided in a flat owned by and belonging to the mother-in-law of the wife, the mother of the husband as licensee. A license agreement was executed by them as co-licensees under which they were required to pay Rs.5000/-per month to the licensor. The mother-in-law issued a notice for termination of license. The wife filed a petition for divorce and obtained an injunction protecting her possession. Thereafter the mother-in-law got herself on record of the Petition as a necessary party in view of the fact that her premises was taken to be shared residence of the parties in respect of which the wife obtained an order of injunction. Though the order of injunction was granted essentially against the husband, it impliedly included his mother as his relatives, attorneys and friends through him were restrained from dispossessing the wife.

3. Upon the application of the mother-in-law the impugned order came to be passed vacating the order of injunction.

4. The wife filed this Writ Petition challenging the order of vacating the order of injunction. She was directed to pay the license fees as a condition of granting her interim relief.

5. She challenged that interim order by way of an SLP. Her SLP was dismissed on 19th July 2010. Consequently, the order vacating the order of injunction was impliedly revived and was sought to be enforced.

6. When that was sought to be enforced the wife filed an undertaking in the Family Court. The undertaking was to vacate the suit premises after one month of the date of the undertaking. A written undertaking has been given by the wife on 4th October 2010. She was, therefore, required to vacate the premises licensed by her from her mother-in-law by 3rd November 2010. This undertaking was given to obtain a respite in the application seeking to enforce the order of vacating the order of injunction.

7. This writ petition having been filed prior to the undertaking having been given, she sought to pursue the writ petition after depositing the amount of license fees ordered to be deposited. She took out another application for clarification of the time for deposit. Nevertheless the deposit has been made. The writ petition has to be considered keeping in mind her undertaking given pending the writ petition when the order of interim stay, which was conditionally passed in the writ petition, was initially challenged and later upheld.

8. It is contended on her behalf that her application for injunction was made under Section 7 Explanation (c) to the Family Court Act, 1984. The licensed property is sought to be contended to be “the property of the parties” though it is admittedly the property owned by her mother-in-law and not by either her or her husband who are the parties to a marriage. Though it may be seen that the very order of injunction against dispossession obtained by her would not fall within the ambit or Section 7 explanation (c) as it was not a property of the parties to the marriage, it is contended on her behalf that it was an order of injunction arising out of the marital relationship. Be that as it may, the order of injunction obtained by her was vacated by the Family Court. She gave an undertaking to abide by the order of vacating the order of injunction, upon she being given one month’s time for that purpose.

9. It is now contended that she gave the undertaking under constraint. Undertakings are given by parties who are invariably under constraints. Undertakings are given when all other doors appear to be closed. Undertakings are given when a party agrees and understands that the order which is passed