1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR M.C.A. No.630/2010 in Writ Petition No.3963/2007 ( Mr. Krushnamurthy S/o Subramaniam Iyer -: versus :- Mrs. Sucheta W/o Sachin Iyer & another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri A.M. Ghare, Adv. for petitioner. Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Adv. for respondent. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 13, 2010. Heard Adv. Shri Ghare for petitioner and Adv. Shri Parsodkar for respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 is formal party and hence service upon him is dispensed with. Order passed by Family Court below Exh.5 restraining applicant from forcibly dispossessing the respondent no.1 was challenged in this Court vide Writ Petition No.3963/2007 and that order has been maintained after hearing both the parties. Adv. Shri Ghare in review contends that Family Court has mechanically granted latter part and also restrained applicant from dispossessing or alienating suit premises during the pendency of suit. His contention is that the property is self-earned property of applicant and no such 2 restriction could have been imposed. He invites attention of this Court to writ petition to show that specific ground was raised in this respect and that ground has not been looked into by this Court while deciding writ petition. Adv. Shri Parsodkar is opposing the prayers made in review petition. I find that respondent no.1 before Family Court alleged that her husband is not maintaining her and hence applicant has permitted her to stay with him. The Family Court in view of this history has protected her possession. It is apparent that because of this protection granted, during the pendency of suit, a restriction to deal with the property has also been imposed upon the applicant. During arguments, Adv. Shri Ghare has contend that applicant is old aged person who has developed cancer and he further states that purchaser from applicant may not evict respondent. Adv. Shri Parsodkar is disputing this contention. I do not find it necessary to go into this controversy. In present case I find that no case is made out for grant of review application. Hence the same is rejected. JUDGE Tambaskar.