/8293/2026 of PRAJAKTA W/O JAY GAWANDE Vs DR. JAY S/O VIJAY GAWANDE on 9 October 2026

JUDGMENT:

Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The present petition challenges the order dated

2026:BHC-NAG:13756

15. wp8293.2026jud.odt 24.09.2026 passed below Exhibit 8 by the learned Family Court No. 7, Nagpur, in Petition No. A-1073/2016. The application at Exhibit 8 was filed seeking a mandatory injunction against the respondent to vacate the house of the petitioner i.e. husband.

The main proceedings are filed by the husband i.e. respondent herein seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The said proceedings are pending. In the said proceedings, an application under Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, read with Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was filed.

The said application as stated supra is allowed and the order is impugned in the present petition.

I have heard Mr. Lambat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

Mr. Lambat, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court has not taking into consideration a specific defence raised by the petitioner and has passed the impugned order. He further states that as has been observed in the impugned order that the premises at Shankar Nagar, is the only residential premises but he states that the said statement is factually incorrect. He also states that only on the basis of affidavit filed by the respondent herein that the mandatory injunction has been granted.

I have also gone through the said affidavit which states that the petitioner has no other residential property in Nagpur owned by him or his father.

Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, supports the impugned order. He also places reliance on the affidavit and, in all fairness, hands across the Bar a copy of the communication addressed to the present petitioner, wherein it is stated that three accommodations have been offered to the petitioner-wife in terms of the order passed by the Court.

Before we proceed further, for the sake of brevity, the operative order of the impugned order is reproduced herein : “1] Application is partly allowed. 2] The petitioner is directed to search a rented 1-BHK flat for respondent in the locality of Shankar Nagar, Nagpur or 1 and half kms. away from that locality by paying necessary deposits and rent for it, within 15 days from date of this order. 3] Respondent is also at liberty to search any other rented house for her in that locality. In that event, the petitioner is directed to pay the amount of deposit which is being paid in that area of Shankar Nagar or within 1 and half km. locality from Shankar Nagar. Petitioner is further directed to deposit the rent of Rs.15,000/- p.m. without fail on or before 6th day of each calender month in court. 4] The respondent is directed to vacate the flat No.101 of Maharshi Shashi Sharad Apartment, Shankar Nagar, Nagpur within 15 days from the date of order. 5] After, handing over the possession of the flat no.101 at Shashi Sharad Apartment to petitioner by respondent, she is hereby restrained from entering that flat forcefully, without the consent of petitioner and from disturbing his possession, till further order. 6] Both parties are directed to file the compliance pursis of the order on record after 15 days. 7] Both parties are directed to take note the order.”

It is thus clear that the trial Court has granted fifteen days time for the respondent i.e. the present petitioner to vacate the said Flat No.101 of Maharshi Shashi Sharad Apartment, Shankar Nagar, Nagpur.

I have also gone through the reasoning as appearing in the impugned order. It is also noteworthy to mention here that a reply was filed to the application at Exhibit 8.

After going through the reply, which is at page 85 of the petition, it is glaring that neither the said reply contains any particulars which have been argued today nor the same is supported by the affidavit. Furthermore, as can be seen from the reply, the said reply contains entire factual aspect, however, sans affidavit. Therefore, no fault can be found with the order passed by the learned trial Court.

Furthermore, even on merits, as can be seen from paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, the trial Court has considered the prima facie material in favour of respondent and more particularly, looking to the ailing condition of the husband i.e. respondent and his old aged father.

Thus, having found a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, the order seems to be correct and balancing equities.

In that view of the matter, no interference is called for in writ jurisdiction, moresoever, when no perversity in the impugned order is shown. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule stands discharged accordingly.

[Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.] Prity

Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 13/10/2026 18:28:57