SWAPNA SADANAND AYARE Vs. VAISHALI DILIP TANWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant applied to be made party Respondent in the Petition filed by the Petitioner, wife of the Respondent in the Family Court, Mumbai being Petition No.B 122/ 2009. That Petition intrinsically was filed for protecting her possession in her matrimonial home. The applicant claimed to have purchased that matrimonial home and claims recovery of possession and other rights. Her application came to be rejected with costs. Hence this Writ Petition is filed.

(2.) The Respondent No.l and the Respondent No. 2 are wife and husband have had a acrimonious matrimony. The Respondent husband was alleged to have stabbed his wife on various parts of her person including her abdomen. He was charged under Section 307 of the I.P.C. He has been convicted on 24th May, 2010. The conviction was suspended for 4 weeks. Thereafter he was to surrender or be taken into custody. In fact he was found to be at large. He dared to come to this Court in an application, which does not even concern him. Upon this Court realising that he was a fugitive, the Senior Inspector of relevant Police station being Mahim Police Station was called. He has now been taken into custody as per procedure established by law. It is in this set of circumstances that the applicant/Petitioner claimed her rights in the Family Court to intervene in a dispute which does not concern her at all.

(3.) The applicant/petitioner is the immediate neighbour of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. They live in a chawl premises. Their premises is stated to be about 250 sq. ft. built-up/180 carpet area. The incident of stabbing took place in December 2008. The husband was arrested in January, 2009. He appears to have been released on bail as an under-trial. He, therefore, naturally resided in the matrimonial home. It must only be imagined by Court as well as by others how the wife could have survived in her matrimonial home with her husband who had already once stabbed her. Given the situation in which most family are, neither of the parties has a choice of taking up another place of residence. The husband and the wife naturally continued to live together, their disputes notwithstanding.