1 WP.6303/2010 mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6303 OF 2010 Atul Avinash Shelke ...Petitioner Vs. Ashwini Atul Shelke ...Respondent Mr. P.J. Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. Nita Karnik, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. : 1. The Petitioner has challenged the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court dated 25 th June 2010 allowing the Respondent wife to enter upon flat being Flat No.504, A-Wing, Akruti Elegance, Gavanpada, Mulund (East), Mumbai 400 080 injuncting the Petitioner husband from alienating, transferring or creating any third party rights thereof. 2. The Petitioner was represented by his Advocate. The application was made in March 2007. The order has been passed on 25 th June 2010. The Petitioner had not filed any affidavit in reply to the application filed by the Respondent wife. The order records and goes on the premise, as is the case of the wife, that the said flat is the matrimonial home of the parties in which the wife has equal 2 WP.6303/2010 right of stay. Order also goes on the premise that the Respondent wife is the guarantor in respect of the loan taken by the Petitioner for purchase of the flat. It was submitted by the wife that she is an equal owner. For want of a reply and upon these facts the order granting the wife right to stay in the flat and the husband’s injunction against disposing the flat is correct. 3. There is no material irregularity that can be corrected in this Writ Petition. The only remedy of the Petitioner would be to get the order set aside by the same Court upon showing sufficient cause for not filing his reply despite his representation in the interim application, which could be considered on merits and in accordance with law. 4. In any event, the main contentions of the parties are required to be considered on evidence in the Petition. The Writ Petition is misconceived and hence dismissed. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)