1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4410 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. ------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.P. L.Singh for the petitioner. Mr.Vijay Sutrale for the Respondent. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. DATED : 08.07.2008 P.C. Heard Mr.Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Sutrale, the learned counsel for the respondent. By the impugned order, the Judge of the Family Court No.3, Mumbai was pleased to grant the respondent’s (respondent in M.J.Petition No.A-1271/07) Interim Application No.372/2007 in M.J.Petition No.A-1271 of 2007 (Exh. 9) in terms of prayers (a) and (b). In addition to this, the petitioner 2 (petitioner in M.J. Petition No.A-1271/07) was also directed to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the prayers (a) and (b) which read thus: (a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an Order of Injunction restraining the petitioner from dealing with or disposing off or parting with the possession or creating any encumbrances or creating any third party interests or from illegally getting transferred the names in the share certificates or the society records in respect of the said matrimonial home of the respondent i.e. Flat No.E-18/A, 203, Yogi Guru Krupa CHS, Yogi Nagar, Eksar Road, Borivli (West), Mumbai 400 092, in any manner whatsoever. 3 (b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition the petitioner be ordered to allow the respondent to reside in the said matrimonial home and the petitioner be directed to handover the keys of the said flat to the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the flat in dispute since gifted by the petitioner to his brother, order in terms of prayer (b) could not have been passed. However, he has no objection if order in terms of prayer (a) is continued. Above contention was also raised before the Family Court. The flat in question is alleged to have transferred by way of gift by the petitioner in favour of his own real brother who is residing abroad. The trial Court recorded the finding that the petitioner has executed the Gift Deed in order to frustrate the 4 respondent’s claim. The reply filed by the respondent does show that the name of the petitioner is displayed on the name board of the society. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and the petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE,J.] MORE,J.] MORE,J.]