ABHIJIT BHIKASETH AUTI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. Following questions arise for consideration in this petition:

(2.) The 2nd respondent is the wife of the petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent was solemnised on 22nd April 2004. According to the case made out by the 2nd respondent, after marriage, she stayed along with the petitioner in Flat No. B-10, Rambaug Colony, Kothrud, Pune. As the 2nd respondent found it inconvenient to attend to her duty by residing at the said premises, a flat being Flat No. B-13, Yashganga Residency, near Trimurti Hospital, Dhayari Phata, Pune was jointly acquired by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. It is this flat which is the subject matter of dispute in this petition which is hereinafter referred to as "the said flat". It appears that there was a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the said Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 4, Pune seeking protection order under Section 18 of the said Act. The prayer in the said application is that the petitioner should be prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence and also from causing any kind of alienation of the said flat and from causing any disposition of the said flat or any encumbrance thereto and from preventing the 2nd respondent from having access to and fro to the said flat and enjoying the said flat as a residence. A prayer was also made for restraining the petitioner from preventing the enjoyment of the 2nd respondent of the said flat as a shared household. A relief was also sought under Section 19 of the said Act.

(3.) An application was made by the 2nd respondent in the main application under Section 12 of the said Act praying for grant of interim relief in respect of said flat. The said application was opposed by the petitioner by filing a reply. The petitioner filed a combined reply to the main application as well as to the application for interim relief. The said application was partly allowed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 1st March, 2007. The prayer made for interim relief as regards residential accommodation was rejected and a limited relief was granted preventing the petitioner from alienating the stridhan in his possession. The 2nd respondent preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the said Act. By impugned judgment and order dated 15th October, 2007, the appeal was partly allowed by the Sessions Court. The relevant part of the operative order read thus: