POPAT KARBHARI HADAWALEversusSMT. SUMAN POPAT HADAWALE

                                                                             1 of 5                     4.AO.318.2022.DOC



                                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                   APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.318 OF 2022
                                                                 WITH
                                                  INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2256 OF 2022

                               Popat Karbhari Hadawale, Age 56 years,
                               R/o.Room No.305, 3rd floor, Santoshi Mata Mandir,                         Appellant
                               Luis Wadi, Thane (W).                                                     (Husband)

                                              versus

                               Smt.Suman Popat Hadawale, Age 50 years,
                               R/o.Room No.305, 3rd floor, Santoshi Mata Mandir,                         Respondent
                               Luis Wadi, Thane(W).                                                      (Wife)
                                                                  _______

                               Mr.Amogh Karandikar for Appellant.
                               None for Respondent.
                                                                        _______

                                                              CORAM          :        AARTI SATHE, J.

                                                              DATE           :        16th September 2026
                               P.C.

                               1.           This Appeal from Order filed under Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code

                               of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC’) takes exception to the order dated 12 th March

                               2020 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane (`Trial Court’) under

                               Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, below Exhibit-5 whereby the learned

                               Trial Court restrained the Appellant from creating any third party interests by way

                               of alienating, transferring or selling the suit properties without due process of law

                               till disposal of the suit, which are described at paragraph no.7 of the plaint .
            Digitally signed

                               2.           Briefly the facts are as follows: -
MANISH      by MANISH
            SURESHRAO
SURESHRAO   THATTE
THATTE      Date: 2026.09.18
            10:01:00 +0530




                               M.S.Thatte
                                         2 of 5                     4.AO.318.2022.DOC



             (i)     The aforesaid dispute arises out of matrimonial discord

between the Appellant and Respondent, who were married on 30 th March 1986 as

per Hindu Vedic rites and rituals at Village Tahakari, Tal.Akole, Dist.Ahmednagar.

             (ii)    Out of the said wedlock, the Appellant and Respondent have

two sons namely Mayur and Manoj, who are residing separately and earning their

own income.

             (iii)   Amongst the suit properties enlisted in paragraph no.7 of the

plaint, the property being Room No.305, 3 rd floor, Santoshi Mata Mandir, Luis

Wadi, Thane(W) is the matrimonial home of the Appellant and the Respondent.

             (iv)    On account of the matrimonial discord between the Appellant

and the Respondent, the Respondent has filed proceedings under the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the `D.V.

Act’), which is pending and also simultaneously filed an application for interim

injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC before the Trial Court

which came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 12th March,2020.

             (v)     In the plaint which has been filed by the Respondent before

the Trial Court, the Respondent has categorically submitted that the suit properties

including the matrimonial home were purchased by the Appellant from his own

savings. However, she contended that considering that she is the wife of the

Appellant, she also has equal right, title and share in the properties of the

Appellant. It is in these circumstances that the Respondent prayed for interim

injunction, which was granted by the Trial Court by way of impugned order dated

12th March 2020.




M.S.Thatte
                                          3 of 5                    4.AO.318.2022.DOC



3.           None appears for the Respondent in spite of notice. On an earlier

occasion, mediation attempts have also failed between the Appellant and the

Respondent.

4.           Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the order of the Trial

Court giving blanket injunction against the Appellant from disposing of the suit

properties which are self-acquired properties of the Appellant, is causing prejudice

to the Appellant, inasmuch as, in the event the Appellant wishes to dispose of the

suit properties he is unable to do so. He has further submitted that considering the

categorical submission of the Respondent that the suit properties have been

acquired by the Appellant from his own source of income, the impugned order

granting blanket injunction, was unwarranted in the facts of the present case.

5.           He has also submitted that the D.V. proceedings are pending

adjudication and also has submitted on instructions that so far, no maintenance

order has been passed granting any maintenance to the Respondent. He has

further submitted before this Court an affidavit of the Appellant dated 10 th

September 2026, which is in the form of an undertaking, specifically giving an

undertaking that he has no intention to throw the Respondent out of the shared

household and specifically Room No.305, 3rd floor, Santoshi Mata Mandir, Luis

Wadi, Thane(W), which is the matrimonial home of the Appellant and

Respondent.     The aforesaid affidavit is taken on record and marked “X” for

identification and the undertakings given in the affidavit dated 10 th September

2026 are treated as undertakings given to this Court.




M.S.Thatte
                                           4 of 5                     4.AO.318.2022.DOC



6.           Considering the facts of the case and also considering the undertaking

given by the Appellant dated 10 th September 2026, this Court is of the view that

blanket injunction against the disposal of the suit properties, would indeed cause

prejudice to the Appellant and the same has not been considered by the Trial

Court. This Court is of the view that to that extent the order of the Trial Court

ought to be modified and subject to the aforesaid undertaking given by the

Appellant, the Appellant would be at liberty to dispose of the other properties

other than the matrimonial home i.e. Flat No.305, on 3 rd Floor, situated at

Santoshi Mata Tower, Luiswadi, Thane, if required, only after seeking prior

permission of the Trial Court. It is also clarified that if in future either in the D.V

proceedings or in any other proceedings, if maintenance is granted to the

Respondent, the Appellant shall abide by such orders and shall not take steps to

dispose of the suit properties to defeat the aforesaid order including the

matrimonial home of the Respondent.

7.           Considering the aforesaid, the Appeal from Order is disposed of with

the above modifications to the impugned order dated 12 th March,2020. The

impugned order dated 12th March 2020 is set aside to the above extent.

8.           The Trial Court is requested to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as

possible. All rights and contentions of the parties in respect thereof are expressly

kept open.

9.           The Appellant shall not create third party rights and interests in respect

of matrimonial home being Room No.305, 3 rd floor, Santoshi Mata Mandir, Luis




M.S.Thatte
                                        5 of 5                   4.AO.318.2022.DOC



Wadi, Thane(W) and other suit properties of the Appellant, without taking prior

permission of the Trial Court.

10.          Appeal from Order stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

Interim Application No.2256 of 2022 does not survive and stands disposed of.




                                                 (AARTI SATHE, J.)




M.S.Thatte