ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Mohit A. Gupta, learned advocate for Mr. Aditya A. Gupta, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhir Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vandan Baxi, learned advocate for Nanavati & Nanavati.

2. The petition is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties as the issue involved moves in a narrow compass.

3. The petitioner has preferred present petition purported under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the following substantive prayers :­

“(a) YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Family Court No.2­Ahmedabad at ANNEXURE A to this petition vide which the ad­interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner was vacated in the interest of justice.

(b) YOUR LORDSHIP BE PLEASED to stay the operation and implementation of order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Family Court No.2­Ahmedabad at ANNEXURE A to this petition, pending hearing and final disposal of this petition in the interest of justice.

(c) YOUR LORDSHIP BE PLEASED to direct the respondent to forthwith deposit the arrear of maintenance granted to the minor son pending hearing and final disposal of the petition.”

4. The facts in brief giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner and respondent got married on 9.2.2004 as per the Hindu Marriage Rites and Customs. From this wedlock son named “Anay” is born on 13.3.2005, who is presently with the present petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent has heat rough weather and the petitioner had filed the petition being Hindu Marriage Petition No.1082 of 2019 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1956, ('HM Act' for short) for dissolution of marriage with the respondent on various grounds. The petitioner has also taken out an application under Section 24 of the HM Act for maintenance pendente­lite which application is pending the adjudication before the Family Court, Ahmedabad. The petitioner has preferred an application Exh.17 under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, ('Code' for short), to restrain the respondent from alienating his residential premises being “302, Shashwat Apartment, 5, Parshwanagar Society, Behind Suvidha Shopping Centre, Paldi, Ahmedabad­380007”, pending hearing and final disposal of the petition. The Family Court, Ahmedabad on 30.09.2019, passed an ex­parte order, whereby the respondent was restrained from alienating his aforesaid residential premise. The respondent thereafter took out Exh.21 application under Order 39 Rule 4 of Code for vacating the interim injunction granted vide order dated 30.09.2019 passed below Exh.17. The application Exh.21 moved by the respondent came to be allowed after bipartite hearing and the learned Family Judge by his order dated 26.11.2019 vacated the interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner by an order dated 30.09.2019 with immediate effect. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order vacating the interim injunction and therefore, present petition is preferred.

5. Mr. Mohit Gupta, learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the respondent husband is likely to immigrate to US, as he has received interview call for grant of Green Card pursuant to 2008 application submitted by his mother, who is permanent resident of US. He further submitted that the petitioner has reasonable apprehension that the respondent is likely to dispose of/sale his residential premise before moving to US, which would frustrate the claim of maintenance under Section 24 of the HM Act, as the petitioner would not be able to recover the arrears of maintenance from the respondent. He has placed reliance upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the Case of Tata Chemicals Limited Versus Kshitish Bardhan Chunilal Nath and Others, MANU/WB/1654/2019, and in the case of Sourav Ganguly Versus Mahuaa Media Pvt. Ltd., MANU/WB/1399/2012 as well as the d