KANCHAN UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the wife. She claims that she has been dispossessed from the house in which she was residing by the respondents (particularly the respondent No. 7). Through this writ petition she prays for restitution of possession. As drafted and argued, the writ petitioner tried to given the impression that this is a case of house grabbing.

(2.) The facts show a totally different picture. Admittedly the house never belonged to the petitioner. It belonged to her husband (respondent No. 5), It transpires from the record that the husband has sold the house to the respondent No.7.

(3.) The petitioner relies upon an interim injunction order dated 24-12-2005 obtained by her from the Family Court, Allahabad, restraining the husband from selling the house. For obtaining such an injunction, two things are necessary. First, the person seeking injunction should have a right to that effect. In this case, we do not see how the petitioner, merely on account of being wife, can claim the right to restrain the husband from selling property, which belongs to the husband. Therefore, the injunction did not deserve to be granted on facts. Besides, this injunction, which has been granted in proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. is wholly outside the scope of those matrimonial proceedings pending before the Family Court. Thus prima facie, the Family Court has no jurisdiction to grant this kind of an injunction order.