G.S. PATEL, J.

This appeal is directed against the Order and Judgment dated 28th June 2006 passed by the Family court, Bandra, Mumbai. As the parties have obtained a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the surviving controversy in this appeal is very narrow. It relates only to the question of maintenance claimed by the appellant and the ownership of residential premises, viz., Flat No. 31, Manju Tower, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 053 ("the Lokhandwala Complex flat").

2. The parties were married in Mumbai on 2nd April 1995 according to Arya Samaj rites. The respondent had converted from Christianity to Hinduism. The appellant was a Hindu. They have no children.

3. On 5th November 2003 the respondent filed M.J. Petition No. A-1783 of 2003 in the Family Court in Mumbai for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. That Petition also contained a prayer for a declaration that the respondent was the true owner of the Lokhandwala Complex flat. On 20th February 2004, the appellant filed an interim application bearing No. 28 of 2004 in the respondent's petition for restitution of conjugal rights, seeking interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month from the respondent. Several further interim proceedings followed. On 5th September 2005, the parties filed consent terms in the Family Court at Mumbai. The respondent's petition for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed to be converted into a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The consent terms were limited to the question of a divorce, and expressly kept open all other related issues, viz., the appellant's claim for maintenance and the question of ownership of the Lokhandwala Complex flat. These were to be decided on merits. A written statement was filed and evidence was taken by the Family Court. By the order under Appeal, dated 28th June 2006, the Family Court passed an order in terms of the consent terms as regards divorce; declared the respondent-husband to be real owner of the Lokhandwala Complex flat; and directed the respondent to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of decree.

4. The wife has appealed. The respondent-husband filed cross objections on 13th February 2007. On 27th September 2006 this Court issued notice to the respondent and passed an ad-interim order restraining him from parting with possession and creating any third party rights or encumbrances in respect of the Lokhandwala Complex flat. On 15th December 2006, both parties were heard. The appeal was admitted. A Civil Application No. 204 of 2006 was disposed of directing the respondent to pay to the appellant maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month during the pendency of the appeal. The earlier ad-interim order was also continued. It seems that the respondent defaulted in payment of this monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellant instituted proceedings for recovery of arrears. These are not immediately germane to this Appeal, and it is sufficient to note that the order of interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- was confirmed and continues till date.

5. The pleadings before the Family Court were filed before the parties arrived at a settlement and filed consent terms taking a divorce by mutual consent. These pleadings therefore also relate to the respondent's claim for restitution of conjugal rights. In view of the consent terms, that portion of the pleadings relating to the respondent's petition for restitution of conjugal rights is now irrelevant. However, the pleadings also relate to the question of ownership of the Lokhandwala Complex flat (raised by the respondent) and the appellant's entitlement to monthly maintenance. Parties led evidence after the consent terms were filed. The evidence is, therefore, limited to the issues of ownership of the Lokhandwala Complex flat and maintenance.

6. The respondent's petition for restitution of conjugal rights ind