JAIDEEP ASHOK GHOLKAR Vs. RAKHEE JAIDEEP GHOLKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 27th May, 2016 below Ex.1 and order dated 26th April, 2017 below Ex.56 in P.A.No. 743 of 2015 passed by the learned Family Court No.2, Pune. By an order dated 27th May, 2016 below Ex.1, the Family Court No.2, Pune had allowed the application filed by the respondent wife and had directed the petitioner to vacate the Flat No.12, Saptasur Apartment, Plot Nos. 9 and 10, Survey No.94, Bhusari Colony, Kothrud, Pune ­ 411 038 within a period of 30 days from the date of the said order. By the order dated 26th April, 2017, below Ex.56, Judge, Family Court No.2, allowed the application filed by the respondent and directed the petitioner to provide vacant, peaceful possession of the said flat in compliance with the earlier order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.2 and further directed the petitioner to make an appropriate provision of residence of his mother at the place where he was currently residing at Pune or at Karad where she was holding a property. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :-

(2.) The petitioner and the respondent were married as per Hindu Vedic Rights on 26th June, 2004 at Pune. It is the case of the respondent that prior to her marriage, she was working at Microline India Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner was working as a software developer. According to the respondent, the respondent was meted with cruelty by the petitioner and his mother. The petitioner accordingly had filed a petition P.A.No.743 of 2015 inter alia praying for decree of divorce against the petitioner on the ground of cruelty and for various reliefs. There was a son born out of the said wedlock to the parties. It is the case of the respondent that the said flat was jointly owned by the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent filed an application (Ex.1) inter alia praying that she be inducted in the said flat and prayed for an injunction against the petitioner from entering the said flat on various grounds. The petitioner did not dispute the contribution of the respondent while purchasing the flat before the Family Court and that the respondent was joint owner of the said flat with the petitioner.

(3.) Before the Family Court, the respondent placed reliance on the transcript of conversation between the petitioner and the respondent in the form of compact disc containing audio files. The Family Court considered the said transcript of conversation between the parties and observed that the petitioner herein was in abusive relationship with the respondent and the respondent was out of the flat though she had contributed major share while purchasing the flat. The Family Court also observed that there was no record to believe that the respondent had made any attempt to provide such accommodation or the alternative accommodation to the child, since they parted their ways.