1 2889.10-wp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2889 OF 2010 Pushpa H. Manyal ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Murtaza Najmi i/b. Mrs.R.R.Nadar for the petitioner. Mrs.R.V.Newton, APP for respondent State. CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 2, 2011 PC. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the order of return of original ration card directed against the petitioner on 8th September, 2010 is not yet implemented nor there is any change in the existing ration card which is in the joint name of the petitioner, her son and daughter-in-law. 2. Notice is already directed against respondent Nos.2 and 3 by an order dated 12th October, 2010. Mr.D.G.Gupta caused his appearance. Learned Counsel called, absent. 3. The text of application made by respondent No.2 Rajesh before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court at Borivali, Mumbai illustrates, he requires the original ration card from the petitioner to ensure deletion of his name from the family ration card which is for the permanent residential address at 16, Narayan Nivas, Room No.3, 2 2889.10-wp Khar Danda, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400 052. The applicant also informs, the said respondent Rajesh desires to make a new ration card at the address 604, Plot No.116, Ram Jharoka, Sector-II, Opposite, King George School, Charkop, Kandivali (W), Mumbai – 067. The later address is of the premises for which the parties are litigating before the learned Judge in respect of user, possession and rights therein. 4. Taking these aspects into consideration, the permission in the form of production by the learned Judge asking the petitioner to part with ration card to enable respondent No.1 to delete his name would tantamount allowing respondent No.1 to secure a new ration card as he desired. Such exercise is not contemplated in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner in terms of protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005. In this scenario of the matter, the order of the learned Judge certainly calls for interference. It is accordingly set aside. The petition allowed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.)