HIMANSHU V MEHTAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU GOVT PLEADER AND ORS

                                                                        905-WP-2835-2026.DOC




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 2835 OF 2026


                   Himanshu V Mehta                                          ..Petitioner
                         Versus
                   State of Maharashtra Through Govt Pleader and         …Respondents
                   Ors

                                                 WITH
                                WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 23938 OF 2026

                   Nayan V Mehta                                             ..Petitioner
                         Versus
                   State of Maharashtra Through Govt Pleader and         …Respondents
                   Ors



                   Mr. Aseem Naphade, i/b Sanket Mungale, for the Petitioner in both
                         Petitions.
                   Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
                   Mr. Bhavik Lalan, (Appointed Advocate), for Respondent No.4 in both
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA               Petitions.
SANKPAL
                   Mr. Himanshu Mehta, the Petitioner in WP/2835/2026, Mrs. Biraj
Digitally signed
by ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
                         Mehta, Respondent No.4 in both Petitions and Mr. Nayan
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.10.03
14:47:53 +0530
                         Mehta, Petitioner in WPST/23938/2026, present.


                                              CORAM:         N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                              DATE :         29th SEPTEMBER 2026


                   ORAL ORDER:

                   1.    Heard Mr Aseem Naphade, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner

                   in both Pettitions, Mr. Hamid Mulla, the learned AGP, for the

                   ARS                                 1/6
                                                         905-WP-2835-2026.DOC

Respondent-State and Mr. Bhavik Lalan, the learned Counsel for

Respondent No.4-Senior Citizen, in both the Petitions.

2.    The Respondent No. 4 is the sister of the Petitioner, in the

respective Petitions.

3.    The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 6 th January

2026 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, whereby the Appeal preferred

by the Respondent No.4 against an order passed by the Maintenance

Tribunal on 24th September 2025, thereby directing the Respondent

Nos. 3 and 4 in the Application No. 119 of 2024-the Petitioners (Writ

Petition No. 2835 of 2026 and Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 23938 of

2026) herein, to pay maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month each to

Respondent No.4 herein, came to be partly allowed and the Petitioners

have been restrained from causing obstruction to, and putting

hindrances in the entry and residence of, Respondent No.4 in the house

premises.

4.    By a further order dated 29th January 2026, the Appellate

Tribunal has issued a Corrigendum and clause (2) of the operative order

of 6th January 2026 was corrected to change the description of the

house premises from 53, New Manu Bhavan to Vainaydhya, 5 th floor,

S.V. Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai. The said order in vernacular reads as

under:

      Z53] U;w euw Hkou] Hkxr flax jksM] foysikysZ ¼i½ eaqcbZ 56*


ARS                                    2/6
                                                       905-WP-2835-2026.DOC

                         ;k ,soth

      ZoSU;/;] 5 ok etyk] ,l Ogh jksM] xksYMu VkscWdks toG]

      foysikysZ ¼i½ eaqcbZ & 400 056*

                         vls okpkos

5.    Mr. Naphade, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners on

instructions, submits that the fifth floor premises is not in the

occupation of the Petitioners. In fact the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.

2835 of 2026 stays in Flat No. 9 on the fourth floor of the said building.

6.    Mr. Lalan, the learned Counsel, who has been appointed to

espouse the cause of Respondent No.4, invites attention of the Court to

the averments in the Application before the Maintenance Tribunal. In

the said Application, the description of the house property was

furnished as: the Flat No. 53, New Manu Bhavan, Bhagatsingh Road,

Vile Parle (West), Mumbai. Mr. Lalan also invited attention of the Court

to the prayer clause in the said Application, wherein the Respondent

No. 4, in addition to the maintenance, has prayed for a provision for a

suitable residence.

7.    Mr. Lalan, the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4, on

instructions of Respondent No.4, who is present in Court, informs that,

now the Respondent No. 4 has filed another Application seeking the

modification of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal to correct the




ARS                                     3/6
                                                         905-WP-2835-2026.DOC

description of the immovable property in which Respondent No. 4 be

allowed to reside.

8.    In the facts of the case, this Court finds that, initially the

Maintenance Tribunal had directed the Petitioners herein to pay

maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month only. A direction to make a

provision for the residence of Respondent No. 4 was not issued. Being

aggrieved, Respondent No. 4 preferred the Appeal before the Appellate

Tribunal. In the first instance, the Appellate Tribunal directed the

Petitioners herein not to restrain Respondent No. 4 from residing in the

premises   which     was   described   in    the   application   before   the

Maintenance Tribunal. Subsequently, the said order was modified by

issuing a corrigendum to provide residence on the fifth floor of the

building Vainaydhya.

9.    The parties are now in unison on the point that, even the said

premises is not in the occupation of the Petitioners.

10.   In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that

the matter is required to be decided afresh by the Appellate Tribunal in

regard to the direction for making a provision for the residence of

Respondent No. 4. The Appellate Tribunal is required to consider

whether a direction for residence in a particular premises which is in

the occupation of the Petitioners should form part of the order that is

required to be made to secure the maintenance for Respondent No.4.


ARS                                    4/6
                                                        905-WP-2835-2026.DOC

11.    Thus, without interfering with the direction issued by the

Maintenance Tribunal to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.4000/- each,

by the Petitioners herein, the Appeal is required to be remitted back to

the Appellate Tribunal to decide the issue of a provision for residence of

Respondent No.4 afresh, after providing an opportunity of hearing to

the parties.

12.    The Petitions thus stand disposed with following directions:

      (i)      The impugned order, to the extent of directions to

      secure the residence for Respondent No.4, stands

      quashed and set aside.

      (ii)     The Appeal stands remitted back to the Appellate

      Tribunal for afresh decision only on the aspect of the

      directions for making a provision for residence of

      Respondent No.4.

      (iii)    It is clarified that, the order for payment of

      maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month each, by the

      Petitioners herein to Respondent No.4 is not interfered

      with. The Petitioners, Himanshu V Mehta and Nayan V

      Mehta, shall continue to pay the said amount to

      Respondent No.4.

      (iv)     The parties shall appear before the Appellate

      Tribunal on 12th October 2026.


ARS                                    5/6
                                                         905-WP-2835-2026.DOC

      (v)       The parties be permitted to file further pleadings

      within a period of one week.

      (vi)      The Appellate Tribunal shall hear and decide the

      Appeal as expeditiously as possible and, preferably,

      within a period of six weeks, thereafter.

      (vii)     It is further clarified that, this Court has not

      entered into the merits of the matter as regards the claim

      of Respondent No.4 for residence and all contentions of

      all the parties are kept open for consideration.

      (viii) The Appellate Tribunal is requested to permit the

      parties to appear through their Advocates, if they so

      desire.

      Petitions disposed.



                                               [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




ARS                                     6/6