1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1907 OF 2008

Sandeep G. Pashankar

.. Petitioner

Versus

Archana Sandeep Pashankar & Ors... Respondents

Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar i/b. Smt.Sangita Gawale for

petitioner

Mr.V.A.Gangal i/b. Ashok T. Gade for respondent

No.1.

CORAM :

S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

DATE

:

8th April 2008

P.C.

.

This is a petition by the husband who has

challenged the order dated 1st February 2008

which is a common order below interim Application

Nos. 312 and 313 of 2007 in Petition No.A-2286

of 2007.

2.

The two applications that were moved by

2

the respondent wife were placed before the

Principal Judge, Family Court, Bandra and the

relief that is claimed in the first application

is for temporary injunction preventing respondent

husband from creating third party rights in the

suit flat which, according to wife belongs to

husband and can be safely termed as matrimonial

home.

3.

Mr.Khandeparkar,

after

taking

instructions makes a statement that the suit flat

which is situated at Nirmala Coop.Housing

Society, Plot No.302, Sector 21, Nerul, Navi

Mumbai (Flat No.201) is presently occupied by the

father and mother of the petitioner. The

petitioner is also visiting the same. However,

neither the petitioner husband nor his father and

mother will alienate, encumber, create third

party rights or part with possession of this flat

in any manner until further orders of the family

court. In such circumstances, the apprehension

3

of the wife that even the flat will be alienated

and she will lose her rights in respect thereof

is taken care of for the time being.

4.

Second application was for interim

maintainance. The grievance of the petitioner

husband before me is that the application was

placed before the regular court. It was taken on

the relevant date and when the application was

heard by the learned Principal Judge,

petitioner’s Advocate was not present. The

petitioner desired to tender some documents on

affidavit and even that opportunity was not made

available. The petitioner husband does not have

an income in the range which is stated in the

impugned order is the submission. Petitioner

does not have any transport business but is a

salaried employee. The transport business is

that of his father. Petitioner has relevant

documents which will show that he is a salaried

employee. Thus, he would be able to substantiate

4

this aspect. However, on the date on which the

matter was taken up the petitioner was

handicapped and could not produce before the

court all the relevant documents and materials.

5.

Mr.Gangal, learned Counsel appearing for

wife denies these contentions and allegations and

submits that the petitioner is very well off and

has his independent transport business. He has

vehicles of his own and his income is such as

would enable him to pay interim maintainance to

the wife and six months old child at the rate of

Rs.15,000/- per month and even more. His

submission is, therefore, that no prejudice is

caused by the impugned order and at the instance

of the husband it should not be set aside.

6.

After having perused the impugned order

to my mind, the petitioner husband deserves an

opportunity to substantiate the pleas.

Naturally, when the matter was placed before the

5

Principal Judge and when the petitioner husband

was present but his Advocate was not there, the

least that was expected from the Principal Judge

was to grant a reasonable opportunity so that the

petitioner could raise appropriate pleas and

produce documents. The learned Judge has noted

the ca