1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.698 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.808 OF 2000 Goroba Bhimrao Chincholikar alias Gade ..Appellant V/s Yashoda Goroba Chincholikar alias Gade & anr. ..Respondents Mr.S.D.Rupwate i/b.Mr.G.P.Lasure with Mr.Santosh Parad, Advocate, for the appellant Mr.G.S.Bhat, Advocate, for the respondent No.1 CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 13TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. . The above appeal takes exception to the Order dated 9th April, 2008, passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court,Mumbai by which the following directions were issued. (i) The defendant No.1 is temporarily restrained from creating any obstruction to the possession of the plaintiff of the suit flat. 2 (ii) The defendant No.1 further restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff of the suit flat. (iii) The defendant No.1 is hereby restrained from alienating the suit flat in any manner till disposal of the suit. The rest of the directions in my view, are not material for disposing of the above appeal. 2. The Trial Court, in allowing the said Motion, has recorded a finding that the plaintiff being the wife of defendant No.1 has every right to stay in the suit premises, which is the matrimonial home of the plaintiff. She has no other premises to reside and since the suit premises is the matrimonial home, the directions reproduced herein above were issued. 3. In my view, the findings recorded by the Trial Court in issuing the said directions cannot be faulted with. The plaintiff, being the wife, has a right to stay in the suit premises along with the defendant No.1. The impugned order therefore calls for no interference. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr.S.D.Rupvate 3 states that it is likely that a proposal for re-development would be mooted and the re-development of the building in question wherein the suit flat is situated would be undertaken. The learned counsel further states that it should not be that on account of the impugned order the re-development proposal by which the plaintiff and defendant No.1 can be benefitted is lost. 4. In my view, if such a re-development proposal is mooted out, the defendant No.1 would be at liberty to move the Trial Court by filing an application seeking direction as regards the re-development proposal and if such an application is filed by the defendant No.1 or the plaintiff, the Trial Court would consider the same on its own merits, uninfluenced by the present order or the order impugned in the appeal. With the aforesaid directions, the above appeal is disposed of. 5. In view of the disposal of the appeal, nothing survives for consideration in the Civil Application and same is accordingly disposed of as such. 4 (R.M.SAVANT, J.)