1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 866 OF 2007

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 866 OF 2007

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 866 OF 2007

IN

S.C.SUIT NO. 3072 OF 2007

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1194 OF 2007

Smtl Hemaxi Atul Joshi ... Appellant

(Org.Deft.No.1)

Vs.

Smt. Muktaben Karsandas Joshi & Anr. Respondents

(Resp.No.1 - org.Plff

& Resp.No.2 - org.

Defendant nO.2)

Mr.Jaydev Trivedi, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr.Nitin Vhatkar, Advocate, a/w G.S.Hiranandani,Advocate

for respondent No.1.

Mr. Prajit S.Manjarekar, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J.

CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J.

CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J.

DATE: 5th December,2007.

DATE: 5th December,2007.

DATE: 5th December,2007.

P.C.

P.C.

P.C.

2

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Admittedly, the appellant, who is defendant

No.1, was married to respondent No.2 sometime in the

year 1996 and out of this wedlock, they have two

children. After the marriage, they were living in the

suit house with the other family members. The relations

between the husband and wife got strained and the

Marriage Petition for divorce was filed by respondent

No.2-husband against the present appellant before the

Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. Plaintiff/Respondent

No.1, who is the mother of respondet No.2 and

mother-in-law of the appellant, claims that she is the

exclusie owner of the suit house and her son and

daughter-in-law after the marriage, were living with her

in her house. However, in the year 2002, the appellant

and respondent No.2 purchased another flat at a short

distance from her house and intermittently they also

used to live there. Respodent No.1 claims that she and

other family members had noticed illicit relationship of

the appellant with some other person. This was objected

to by her and therefore relations were strained.

According to her, the daughter-in-law went to her

parents’ place at Surat in May 2007 after the Divorce

Petition was filed. However, in the last week of May,

2007, she came back to Mumbai and forcibly entered into

3

the plaintiff’s house and started harassing the

plaintiff and her family members. She also abused the

plaintiff in filthy laguage and assaulted her. In view

of these circumstances, she filed the suit for perpetual

injunction restraining the defednants from entering into

and/or occupying and/or remaining in occupation of the

suit premises belonging to her. She also took out a

Notice of Motion seeking temporary injunction of the

same nature. The application was opposed by the present

appellant on the ground that the suit house is the

matrimonial home and she is entitled to reside there in

view of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005 (in brief, "Domestic Violence Act").

3. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge of

the City Civil Court