1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4039 OF 2008 Ms. Sanchita Amitabh Dasgupta ...... Petitioner. V/s Mr. Amitabh Prashant Dasgupta ....... Respondent. ------ Mr. H.P. Vyas for the Petitioner. None for the respondent. ------- CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 27th June, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Bandra dated 14/03/2008 whereby the Court has permitted Smt. Amita Dasgupta to be impleaded as party-respondent. 3. Brief facts in a nutshell are that the petitioner is the wife of respondent. The flat situated at Pune is admittedly owned by mother of the respondent viz. Smt. Amita Dasgupta and leave and license 2 agreement was executed by her in favour of the respondent. In the meantime, after the said agreement was executed between the parties, there were matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the respondent and a Petition for divorce was filed in the Family Court. In the said proceedings, the petitioner herein obtained an order of injunction restraining the respondent from dispossessing the petitioner from the said flat. The original owner of the said flat Smt. Amita Dasgupta, therefore, filed an application that she should be impleaded as party respondent to the said Petition which was filed by the Petitioner herein. This was opposed by the Petitioner on the ground that, in the Family Court, the only dispute between the husband and wife could be entertained and, as such, the original owner was not a proper or necessary party to the said petition. This contention was not accepted by the Family Court and the application filed by the original owner was allowed. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that in view of the provisions of section 7 of the Family Court Act, a third party could not be impleaded as party-respondent. He submitted that, therefore, the said impugned order was liable to be set aside. He submitted that the original owner of the said flat could have filed a separate petition or a suit in the court of competent jurisdiction. 5. In my view, these submissions cannot be accepted. The third party viz. Smt. Amita Dasgupta, admittedly, is the owner of the said flat and any order that may be passed in the petition filed by the 3 Petitioner herein could adversely affect her interest since the flat belongs to her. Hence, there is no substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. 6. Writ Petition is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)