SHAIKH HUSAIN YASIN Vs. BASHIRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by respondent - son of respondent no.1 herein/original aggrieved person challenging the appellate order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai. By this appellate order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to allow the appeal filed by the aggrieved person and set aside the impugned order dated 27 th July 2018 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 61 st Court, Kurla, Mumbai, partially. The petitioner herein/original respondent no.1, by this appellate order, is restrained from creating any third party interest in the shop till decision of the application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Domestic Violence Act for the sake of brevity). In addition, the original respondent no.1/ petitioner herein is directed to pay an amount of Rs.13,500/- to the appellant therein/respondent no.1 herein/aggrieved person as her share in the rent of the Shop no.A-17. In addition, the petitioner herein/original respondent is also directed to pay an additional amount of Rs.6500/- towards maintenance to the aggrieved person.

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein/original respondent no.1 has argued that parties were not residing jointly. He further argued that there was domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the original respondents i.e. mother and son duo. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner herein/original respondent, the interim application was not maintainable and consequently, the impugned judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge needs to be quashed and set aside. In addition, the learned counsel for the petitioner herein/original respondent argued that the aggrieved person was residing in a flat in Kinara Co-operative Housing Society, Kalpak. Apart from this, she is having two 1 Bedroom-Hall-Kitchen flats. She is also having one 1 Room Hall Kitchen. She is joint owner of Shop No.A-17 along with the petitioner herein/original respondent. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner herein/original respondent submits that the appellate order, which is devoid of any reason, needs to be quashed and set aside.