JUDGMENT

R.G. Ketkar, J. - Heard Mr. Pai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the respondent at length.

2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, hereinafter referred to as ''judgment-debtor'' has challenged the order dated 16.07.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Mumbai in Regular Darkhast No.518 of 2017. In that order, the learned trial Judge recorded that if the first floor of Bungalow at 2-B, Indu Park Co-operative Housing Society, Four Bungalows, Andheri (West), Mumbai (for short ''suit premises'') is sold, the judgment debtor can raise enough money to provide flat admeasuring 600 sq.ft. carpet area in Andheri (West) or Juhu Vile Parle area and take away the surplus. The learned trial Judge also noted the submission advanced on behalf of the judgment debtor that daughter from the first marriage of the judgment debtor is occupying the suit premises. The learned trial Judge overruled that contention by observing that judgment-debtor has no locus standi on her behalf and he cannot raise that objection.

3. Respondent, hereinafter referred to as ''decree-holder'', had first instituted Family Court Appeal No.121 of 2004 in this Court challenging the common judgment and order dated 29.06.2004 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Mumbai. Decree-holder had instituted Petition No.A-1822 of 1992 on 23.11.1992 in the Family Court seeking judicial separation under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ''Act'') on the ground of cruelty and ill-treatment. The judgment-debtor had instituted matrimonial Suit No.B-96 of 1992 on 23.12.1992 seeking declaration that the purported marriage between the parties performed on 19.01.1983 be declared null and void on the ground that decree-holder was not a Hindu prior to her marriage and that she had not been converted to Hinduism any time prior to the marriage. The learned trial Judge accepted the submission of the judgment debtor that decree-holder had not been converted to Hinduism prior to marriage, and therefore, marriage between them cannot be said to be valid marriage as per Section 5 of the Act. The learned trial Judge, therefore, held that Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the Petition filed by the decree-holder for judicial separation or the petition instituted by the judgment-debtor seeking a declaration of nullity of marriage. The learned trial Judge dismissed both the petitions on the ground that Family Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the petitions filed by the parties.

4. The Division Bench of this Court (Coram : H. L. Gokhale, J., as His Lordship then was and Mrs. R. S. Dalvi, J.) decided the Family Court Appeal on 25.11.2005. In paragraph 2, the Division Bench noted that the petitioner herein is an industrialist and a businessman of some standing. He is stated to be an engineer and used to run a company by name ''Technical Products Corporation'', which manufactured small engineering equipments such as screws, nuts and bolts. He had a factory in MIDC, Andheri, Mumbai. He had divorced his earlier wife Sugandha Rani some time in the year 1982. He had two children: one son and one daughter from his earlier marriage. Respondent was Catholic Christian by birth and her name was Magdhelene Pereira. Two daughters were born from this marriage. The elder one by name Ritu was born on 10.12.1983 and the younger one by name Richa was born on 03.08.1986. The parties lived together in the suit premises. From paragraph 24 onwards, the Division Bench considered prayers regarding maintenance for the respondent and the two daughters and house accommodation. Reference was made to MoU of 1991 whereunder petitioner has agreed to provide an appropriate apartment to the respondent. The Division Bench noted that the parties lived together for over 8 years. Respondent lived with the petitioner as a wife of a wealthy industrialist. In paragraph 25, the Division