1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4729 of 2010 Anand P. Shanbag ... Petitioner versus Shweta Shanbag ... Respondent ... Mr. R.M.More i/b Uday Warunjikar for the petitioner. Mr.Gautambala Kavita for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 9th July 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 10 June 2010 passed by the Family Court rejecting the petitioner’s application for injunction. Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife. Petitioner has filed a petition for divorce against the respondent in the Family Court. Therein, he made an application for an interim injunction restraining the respondent from entering the matrimonial home i.e. flat no.08, Parasnath, Sudha Park, Shanti Path, Goradia nagar, Mumbai 400077 (hereinafter referred to as “suit flat”) 2 3. In the application, petitioner contended that the suit flat was his parents’ flat and the respondent had no right to reside therein. At the time of hearing of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of the petitioner and petitioner’s father who are present in the court, stated that the suit flat was purchased by the petitioner in the name of himself and his mother. The consideration was paid by the petitioner partly from his savings and partly from the loan borrowed by him. Petitioner’s mother is a house wife and has no source of income. Counsel further stated that petitioner’s parents have a separate flat, bearing Flat No.138 in a building known as “Usha villa” situated at Ghatkopar. Ration card of the petitioner’s parents is at Usha Villa and petitioner’s parents are also registered as voters at an address at Usha Villa. Considering these facts, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that the suit flat belongs to the petitioner’s parents and is not the matrimonial home. Since the suit flat belongs to the petitioner the respondent, being his wife, cannot be prevented from entering the matrimonial home. The trial court was therefore right in rejecting the application of petitioner. I see no reason to interfere in the order passed by the trial court. Writ Petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)