(1) (16) WP 510/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk WRIT PETITION NO. 510 OF 2011 Hiten Anandji Gala .. Petitioner Vs. Leena Harkishandas Rana & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Ramesh Chheda for the Petitioner. Mr. Jaydev Trivedi for the Respondents. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 9 th JUNE, 2011. P.C. 1. The Petitioner husband has challenged the order of the Judge, Family Court No.7, Bandra, Mumba dated 16th August, 2010. The Petitioner’s application was for an interim order of stay the decree of divorce which was obtained by mutual consent of the parties on 12.10.2009 and for injunction restraining his dispossession from the flat mentioned in the application. 2. The parties were married in 2000. They initially lived with the parents of the Petitioner, thereafter in some licenced premises and thereafter in a premises at Andheri purchased in joint names of the parties. They had taken a loan for payment of part of the consideration amount also jointly. The parties thereafter jointly purchased another flat in Vasai during the pendency of their marriage. 3. The parties had disputes from November, 2008 and they filed a Petition for divorce by mutual consent (2) (16) WP 510/11 in May, 2009. After the statutory period of six months, the Petition came to be granted on 2nd December, 2009. The parties entered into certain consent terms with regard to the various aspects of their marriage including their properties. In the consent terms the Petitioner- husband gave the aforesaid two flats, one at Andheri and one at Vasai which stood in the joint names of the parties to the Respondent-wife. The husband resided in other premises. The consent terms were entered into in December, 2009. The decree of divorce was granted in December, 2009. Thereafter the husband filed a further affidavit allowing transfer of the premises to the wife on 26th March, 2010. This was because the premises stood in their joint names in the share certificate which is shown in the compilation at page 182. 4. Between December, 2009 and 26th March, 2010 the husband had no grievance about the consent terms being entered into and the premises being transferred to the wife. 5. This application has been taken out on the ground that the husband was threatened by the wife and an outsider. He was misrepresented, coerced and fraud was played upon him by suppression of correct facts. He was pressurized with threats of demanding more alimony and hence he entered into consent terms. Whatever be the threat, even three months after the consent terms he agreed to transfer the flat to the sole name of the wife. 6. Much later he had applied for rejection of the decree of divorce and had taken out an interim application for stay of the decree and for injunction (3) (16) WP 510/11 restraining his dispossession. 7. He has not shown his possession in the Suit flat except by payment of installments for bank loan and the society charges. Counsel on behalf of the Respondent rightly argued that he was not required to make any payments. The flat was transferred to the wife. It was for her to make payments of these charges thereafter. 8. The Petitioner can neither claim possession, nor title. The affidavit of transfer shows that he was not in possession. In fact it shows that he was in possession of another flat at A/2, Kalpataru Building No. 2, Satya Nagar, Borivali (West), Mumbai-400 092. 9. The Petitioner could not apply for relief against dispossession. 10. The learned Judge has correctly considered that the consent terms were validly entered and the aspect of possession\title of the Petitioner. The order needs no interference. The Writ Petition is dismissed. (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)