1 wp-8658 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Appellate Side Writ Petition No.8658 of 2010 Prangya Aditya Panda .. .. Petitioner v/s. Aditya Ajay Panda .. .. Respondent Mrs.Nityoah Mehta with Mrs.Madhuri Sharma with Mr.N.Suvarna and Mr.Jay Mehta i/by Mrs.A. Dutt for Petitioner. Mr.Rahul Nerlekar for Respondent. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 6th December, 2010 P.C. : 1.Rule, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2.The Petitioner/wife has challenged the order of the Family Court, Mumbai, dated 5 th October 2010, rejecting her application for grant of an interim injunction restraining the Respondent/husband from entering upon the matrimonial home. Her application was made under the Domestic Violence Act, consequent upon certain physical violence suffered by her. Her case of physical violence has been disbelieved upon the husband s alibi that he was in Hiranandani hospital under treatment and could not have caused her the 2 wp-8658 injuries that she sought to show. 3.After this Petition was filed the wife has come upon further documentary evidence. That is consequent upon herself being admitted to the hospital to show the required documents that the hospital would make out in case of admission of any patient. 4.The husband has relied upon a single prescription of the doctor to substantiate his case of alibi. The wife has shown how initially a receipt, bill-cum-cash receipt and MR card are issued upon admission to the hospital to every patient. An OPD fee structure and the patient s rights charter are also issued. Hiranandani hospital is shown to have a service mark. The top left hand corner of the document shows the ISO mark 9001:2008 certified. Thereafter the case history of the patient is recorded as has been done in his case. A doctor, who has been assigned to her, signs the case history. Prescription of the doctor mentions the date but no time. The prescription is made on the letterhead of the hospital having the service mark and the ISO certification. 5.All that has been absent in the case of the husband. 6.Upon this new evidence obtained by the wife, the 3 wp-8658 husband was given time to file his rejoinder. His rejoinder shows what treatment he underwent under the care of his doctor in the certificate annexed to the rejoinder. The said certificate is on the letterhead of Hiranandani hospital, including service mark and the ISO certification. It shows how the entire family was treated on goodwill basis and without any fees. 7.Counsel on behalf of the wife contends that in the trial Court it was not the case of the husband that he was treated on goodwill basis or without any fees. 8.This essential evidence deserves a deeper consideration by the trial Court. Pending such consideration the wife deserves to be protected by an order of injunction. Hence the following order: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 5 th October 2010 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court. (ii) The trial Court shall consider the aforesaid evidence produced by the wife as well as the husband and pass its order on merits. Until such order is passed, the husband shall not enter upon the matrimonial home. 4 wp-8658 (iii)The Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)