ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.4969 OF 2008 PETITION NO.4969 OF 2008 PETITION NO.4969 OF 2008 Mrs.Lina Alex ...Petitioner Vs. Mr.Alex Mathew ...Respondent. Ms.Z.S.Irani with Ms. Susy Mathew for the Petitioner. Mr.Geogy Jacob for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 11th July, 2008 : 11th July, 2008 : 11th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard Ms. Irani, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.Jacob, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. By the impugned order the Respondent’s application below Exhibit 34 in Petition No.B-112 of 2007 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and the Petitioner’s mother is directed to vacate the matrimonial house of the parties namely B-302, R.N.Ajith, Shere Panjab, Andheri (E), Mumbai forthwith. 3. The original proceedings being B-112 of 2007 is filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent and his ( 2 ) Mother for permanent injunction restraining them from selling or parting with the possession of the above said matrimonial house. By an order dated 27/02/2008 of the family Court, the Petitioner, Respondent as well as the Petitioner’s and Respondent’s mothers directed to take regular sessions once in a week with the Marriage Counsellor to resolve their problem amicably within two months from the date of above order and until then the Petitioner’s mother was allowed to stay in the matrimonial house. There is no dispute that counselling is over and the report is already submitted to the Family Court and therefore, the Respondent took out the Application at Exhibit 34 for direction to the petitioner’s mother to vacate the matrimonial house and this application as stated above, is allowed by the impugned order. 4. After hearing the respective parties, I do not see any merit in the petition. The family Court, in my view correctly held that in the absence of challenge to the order dated 27/02/2008, the Petitioner’s mother cannot claim right of residence in Matrimonial house. The Petition No. B-112 of 2007 is taken out for simplicitor injunction and no relief is claimed about the petitioner’s mother’s right. I do not find any ( 3 ) perversity or error in approach adopted by the Family Court. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to exercise my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. At this stage, Ms. Irani, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that some breathing time be given to the mother of Petitioner to vacate the matrimonial house. Mr.Jacob appearing for the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has no objection if 15 days time is granted to vacate the premises. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice I deem it appropriate to grant four weeks time to Petitioner’s mother to vacate the Matrimonial house. With this observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ( R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.)