SHASHISHABMA ALIAS SEEMA Vs. PRAVEEN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE strained husband and wife who are parties to this appeal, are in litigation which is pending in the Family Court at bangalore. The appellant/wife has filed a suit for grant of various reliefs including the relief of maintenance. Upon her application, the Family Court had granted the temporary injunction against the respondent-husband restraining him from alienating the two plaint-schedule properties or subjecting them to any encumbrance pending disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the order of temporary injunction the respondent husband filed a writ petition in this Court with prayer for quashing the order of the Family Court. Vide the order impugned in this appeal the learned Single Judge modified the order of the Family Court with direction that the said injunction will continue with respect to the residential house of the respondent-husband, but in regard to the shop he was permitted to sell the same subject to the condition of deposit and production of original fixed deposit receipt of Rs. 5,00,000/- into the Court to be dealt with as per further orders of the Family Court. It was further directed that the respondent shall not secure or create any lien or charge over the said fixed deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/ -. The appellant was however given liberty to move the Family Court for any interm maintenance in accordance with law.

(2.) BEFORE hearing the arguments we directed the production of parties in the Court for the purposes of reconciliation. Despite best efforts there has not been any compromise between the parties.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the writ petition and modifying the directions in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the facts and circumstances of the case did not warrant the modification of the interim injunction granted by the Family Court. The exercise of the jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge has been stated to be contrary to the established principles of law governing the grant, refusal and modification of the temporary injunctions granted in terms of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.