AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (STAMP) NO.24989 OF 2008 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.111 OF 2007 Vijay Sapte ... Petitioner Vs. Ramchandra Pawar & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. G.S. Godbole with Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar for the petitioner. Ms. P.V. Baddare for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 23RD APRIL, 2009. P.C.:- 1. Review is sought of our Order dated 8/4/2008 in Family Court Appeal No.111 of 2007. In that appeal, the appellant-husband had challenged Order dated 15/4/2006 and Order dated 22/6/2007 passed by the Family Court, Mumbai. By the said order, the Family AJN 2 Court had directed the appellant-husband to allow the respondent- wife to enter the said flat. For convenience, the appellant and respondent are referred to as husband and wife respectively. The dispute essentially is between the husband and the wife. Admittedly, the review petitioner had made an intervention application in the Family Court, which was rejected. Even in the appeal, the review petitioner tried to intervene. In the interest of justice, we heard learned counsel for the intervener. His case is that he is a bonafide purchaser of the suit flat. He had purchased it on 11/9/2006 i.e. after the Family Court's Order dated 15/4/2006. 2. The appeal was disposed of by us by the order of which review is sought. We had confirmed the Family Court's order with certain directions. As regards the review petitioner and the sale of the suit flat, we had observed as under: “9. ... ... ... ... It is obvious that the appellant has sold the premises after order dated 15/4/2006 passed by the Family Court to defeat the claim of the respondent and to frustrate order dated 15/4/2006. ... ... ... ... AJN 3 17. We do not want to express any opinion on the rights of the intervener Mr. Vijay Sapte. We are informed by Shri Pradhan, learned counsel for the intervener that he is a bona fide purchaser. In this matrimonial dispute between the appellant and the respondent, we are not inclined to hear the intervener on the question as to which is the matrimonial house of the respondent and where she should stay. The intervener is however, free to adopt such remedy as may be available to him in law against his vendor, if he is so advised. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the rights of the intervener.” 3. We must also note that this court' s order was challenged by the review petitioner in the Supreme Court and admittedly, the special leave petition was withdrawn by him. 4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has argued that Order dated 15/4/2006 did not restrain the appellant-husband from selling the suit flat and it provided an option to the appellant- husband to give a decent accommodation to the respondent-wife and, in any case as per that order, she would have been in joint possession of the suit flat. AJN 4 5. Learned counsel submitted that the review petitioner is prepared to offer an alternate accommodation admeasuring an area of 300 sq. feet to the wife, who is present in the court. He submitted that the review petitioner is even prepared to allow the wife to stay in the suit flat along with him and his family. He is prepared to give her one room. In our opinion, in a dispute between the husband and wife the review petitioner has absolutely no locus. We had expressed in our order dated 15/4/2006 that the suit flat was sold to the review petitioner to frustrate the Family Court's order. We had, however made it clear that the review petitioner can adopt such remedy as may be available to him in law against the husband. Special leave petition filed against the said order was withdrawn by the review petitioner. Since the petitioner has no locus in the proceedings between the husband and wife, there is no question of his making any offer to the wife. 6. In any case, at the insistence of learned counsel for the review petitioner, we asked the wife who is about 75 years of age, AJN 5 as to whether she is prepared to accept the offer. She declined to accept the offer. She stated that she is staying in the suit flat for the last 25 years. She is comfortable in the suit flat because she gets help from the neighbours. It is not possible for her to shift anywhere else. She submitted that there is no question of staying with the review petitioner and his family in the suit flat. In our opinion, since the review petitioner has no locus, the offer made by him has no relevance. This is not a case where there is a discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the review petitioner when the order was passed by us, or there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. There are no sufficient reasons for review of the order. Hence, review petition is dismissed. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [R.S. MOHITE, J.]