1 WP 5368.09.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5368 OF 2009 Mr. Sudhir Suryakant Pawar. ... Petitioner. V/s. Mrs. Archana Sudhir Pawar. ... Respondent. Mr. V.G. Peshave for the Petitioner. Mr. S.S. Hardikar for the Respondent. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 24th MARCH 2011. P.C. :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Learned Counsel Mr. Hardikar appearing on behalf of the Respondent waives service. By consent, the Petition is taken up for hearing. 3. The Respondent herein has filed Petition for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act at Family Court at Pune being PA No. 673 of 2008. In the said Petition the Respondent has filed application at Exhibit 7 and prayed that the Petitioner be restrained from entering upon the flat at Sai Ashray, Flat No. 10, Vidya Sagar Society, Salisbury Park, Pune. The learned Judge of the Family Court has allowed the said application by order dated 12th February 2009 and has restrained the Petitioner from entering into the aforesaid flat. The learned Judge has also issued an order of injunction restraining the 2 WP 5368.09.sxw Petitioner from entering the school campus of the daughters and son of the Petitioner. 4. After hearing learned Counsels on both sides, I am of the view that the learned Judge has considered the application at Exhibit ‘7’ in the proper perspective. It is noticed that the Respondent and the daughters and son of the Petitioner are staying in the said flat. It is true that the said flat is jointly owned by the Respondent and the Petitioner. I am saying this on the basis of the document at page 42 of the compilation i.e. the document entered into between Ashray Developers and Directors on one hand and the Petitioner and the Respondent on the other. It is the claim of the Respondent that he has right in respect of the said flat. It appears that the learned Judge of the Family Court believed the word of the Respondent that there is a threat to the life of the Respondent and that is how the learned Judge of the Family Court has passed the order of injunction. On consideration of the record, I am of the view that the learned Judge has taken a practical view and has issued an order of injunction. In my view, no interference is required in the order as regards the injunction granted against the Petitioner concerning the Flat No.10 mentioned above. 5. The learned Judge of the Family Court has restrained the Petitioner from entering into the children’s school at Pune. In my view, this order has been passed without giving specific reasons for doing so. The order no where mentions as to why 3 WP 5368.09.sxw the learned Judge came to the conclusion that an order of injunction is required to be passed against the Petitioner restraining him from entering into the school campus. To that extent, the order is required to be set aside. At the same time, looking to the disputes which are presently pending between the parties, it would be proper for the Petitioner to make an application for access so that the learned Judge of the Family Court can consider the stand of both the parties and decide the request for access. 6. I have noted that the Petition came to be filed for divorce in the year 2008. The Petitioner is directed to pay maintenance to the extent of about Rs.13,500/-. The Petitioner is restrained from entering into a flat which stands in his name alongwith the Respondent. In such a case, I am of the view that the learned Judge of the Family Court should dispose of the divorce proceeding No.PA-673 of 2008 so that the parties would be able to know their rights. 7. In my view, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would be proper to direct the learned Judge of the Family Court to dispose of the divorce petition by 31st August 2011. I am passing this order as the learned Counsels on both sides have reported to the Court that divorce petition is at the stage of hearing and the learned Counsels on both sides have promised this Court that their counterpart in the Family Court would co-operate for early disposal. 4 WP 5368.09.sxw 8. In view of this, following order is passed :- (i) No interference is required in the order regarding the flat. (ii) The order dated 12th February 2009 as regards restraining the Petitioner from entering into the school campus where the two daughters and one son of the Petitioner and Respondent are studying is set aside. If the Petitioner is interested in having access as regards two daughters and one son, he shall make an application for access. The said application for access shall be decided within a period of two months from the date of filing of the application. Learned Judge of the Family Court before whom proceedings No.PA-673 of 2008 are pending, shall hear and dispose of the said Petition by 31st August 2011. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner shall place copy of this order before the learned Judge of the Family Court so that he can fix the schedule for trial. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)