Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.—Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra alongwith Sri Nitin Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Present petition has been filed with the following prayer :

“i) kindly, set aside the impugned order dated 1.2.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court (Family Court), Court No. 2, Ghaziabad in application (paper No. 5-C) filed by the defendant-respondent in Case No. 1-2674 of 2014 (Yogish Arora v. Jennette Yogish Arora);

ii) kindly, restrain the defendant-respondent from alienating or transferring or creating any third party’s right, in any manner whatsoever, in respect of any of the properties described in the plaint of Case No. A-2674 of 2014 (Yogish Arora v. Jennette Yogish Arora), especially, properties AR Survey Nos. 173/11, 173/1H, 173/2P3, Village Kumbashi, District Kundapura with two houses thereon, the properties situated at Bangalore and Kolkata, and Maruti Swift Car bearing registration No. MH 02 BT 2101, during the pendency of all the three cases, i.e. Case No. A-2674 of 2014 (divorce matter), Case No. 82 of 2015 (custody matter) and Case No. 83 of 2015 (property matter), before the Court below;

iii) issue any other suitable direction or pass an order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstance of the case; and

iv) Award costs of the petition to the petitioner.”

3. By the impugned order dated 1.2.2018 the order dated 3.11.2014 granting interim injunction has been recalled by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad.

4. At the very outset, the question that arises is :

“whether in the light of provisions of Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable or not?”

5. Before dealing with the question it would be appropriate to take note of the brief background of the case.

6. As per record, on 15.2.1999 marriage between plaintiff-petitioner and the defendant-respondent was solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954) at Mumbai. In the year 2013 the petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 22 of the Act of 1954 and he also prayed for custody of his minor child. As alleged, the respondent filed divorce petition. However, a compromise took place between the parties and accordingly, the divorce petition was withdrawn by the defendant-respondent. Subsequently, it appears that again some dispute arose between the parties and as such the petitioner filed Petition No. A-2674 of 2014 in the Family Court Bandra, Mumbai against the respondent claiming several reliefs, which also included relief regarding some property. For the purpose of present controversy prayers (e) and (i) are relevant, which are quoted as under :

“e) An order of Injunction be passed restraining the Respondent, her parents, family members, servants, agents, representatives of any other person or persons acting for and on behalf of her, from creating third party interest in any of the properties held in the joint or single names of the Petitioner and the Respondent without following due process of law more particularly the following properties :

i) Flat No. 1501 and 1502, on the 15th floor of building Kia Park, Veera Desai road, Andheri (W), Mumbai

ii) The landed property at Brahmavar, Mangalore, registered in Brahmavar

iii) Landed property at Survey No. 173/1I, 173/1H, 173/2P3, Village Kumbashi, District Kundapura with two houses Residential property at Bangalore and Culcutta which stands in the names of the Respondent.

i) That, pending the final disposal of the Petition, an order of Injunction restraining the Respondent, her parents, family members, servants, agents, representatives of any other person or persons acting for and on behalf of her, from creating third party interest in any of the properties held in the joint or single names of the parties jointly without following due process of law more