1 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 922 OF 2010 M. Subramanya Shastri and another .. Petitioners Versus Presiding Officer, DRT-II and another .. Respondents Ms. Sumedha Rao for the Petitioners Ms. Shilpa Kamble i/by Shukla & Shukla for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 3rd May, 2010. P.C.: 1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioners (husband and wife) have impugned the order dated 1st April, 2010 passed by the Presiding Officer Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai(DRT-II) under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (the Act). The petitioner No.2- wife, in Appeal No.27/2010, filed before the learned Presiding officer DRT-II, has impugned the order passed by the Recovery Officer in Recovery Proceeding No. 408 of 2005 dated 4th February, 20010, which reads as under: 2 "Appl. Adv.Ms. Shilpa present. Adv. Ms. Bagdadi present for CD No.2. It appears from the record that by order dated 23.11.2009, CD No.2 was directed to file ownership proof of flat where he is residing with his wife alongwith the Income Tax returns in respect of his wife from the year 1996 till date for proving her source independently. But till date he has not complied with the Tribunal orders. Adv. for the CD No.2 has prays for two weeks time for filing the Income returns and as well as staying the warrant of arrest. Request is allowed." 2. The directions given in the above order is to the husband, who has claimed that the flat belongs to his wife, since the year 1996, to file the ownership proof and to file the income tax returns of his wife since the year 1996. The Learned Presiding officer has correctly dismissed the appeal filed by the wife before him on the ground that the wife cannot be said to be aggrieved by the order passed against the husband. If at all the husband is aggrieved by the order of the Recovery Officer dated 4th February, 2010, it is he who has to file an appeal under section 30 of the Act before the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II. In view thereof the order dated 1st April, 2010 impugned in the present Writ Petition needs no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. 3 3. The Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners now states that the petitioner No.1 husband is willing to abide by the order dated 1st February, 2010. He, however, needs 8 weeks time to file the necessary documents. 4. The Petitioner No.1 husband shall be at liberty to apply before the Recovery Officer seeking extension of time to file the necessary documents, which application shall be heard and decided on its own merits. ( S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.)