Bombay High Court
Suvita Shetty vs Sunil Shetty on 26 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:36582
1/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9600 OF 2025
Mrs.Suvita Shetty
Age - 41 years, Occupation : Housewife
R/at. Flat No.302, Lotus Heights, Petitioner
Road No.15, Gandhi Maidan,
Chembur (E), Mumbai- 71.Petitioner
Versus
Sunil Shetty
Age - 53 years, Occupation - Service,
Currently residing at
Henjagdamba Bhavan, Room No.9,
G.K. Marg, Lower Parel,
Mumbai - 400 013.
Permanent Address:
Respondent
Flat No.302, Lotus Heights,
Road No.15, Gandhi Maidan,
Chembur (E), Mumbai - 71.
.....
Mr.Ramesh Lalwani, Ms.Sadhna Lalwani, Mr.Apoorv V. Singh,
Mr.Manish Pasale and Mr.Hirday Surve i/b. Mr.Rakesh Rahate,
Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms.Sushmita Sherigar, Advocate for the Respondent.
.....
CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
DATED : 26.08.2025.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal with the consent of
RAJESHRI
PRAKASH parties.
AHER
2/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
3. The petitioner-wife, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by
the Judge, 4th Family Court, Mumbai, below Exhibit 6 dated 13 th
June, 2025, has approached this Court in its supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. The Petitioner and Respondent, who are husband and wife,
due to turbulence in their marriage, are estranged since 2018.
The petitioner-wife, feeling aggrieved with the order restraining
her from obstructing, interfering with or preventing the
Respondent from peacefully entering, residing in and accessing
flat No.302, Lotus Heights, Road No.15, Gandhi Maidan, Chembur
(East), Mumbai, until final disposal of the main Petition or further
orders, has approached this Court. Vide impugned order, it is
further directed that the Respondent-husband should be
permitted to re-enter and reside in the said flat on the condition
that he shall not disturb or interfere with the peaceful residence of
the Petitioner and their minor daughter. Both the parties are
directed to maintain peace, and not to engage in any form of
coercion, harassment or threat against each other, either directly
or through a third party. In order to eliminate any possibility of
controversy, the Respondent is directed to install Closed-Circuit
Television Cameras (CCTV) within a period of 7 days from date of
re-entry into the shared premises at his own expense. The CCTV
Rajeshri Aher
3/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
installation is limited only to the purpose of monitoring common
areas of the premises. There is an express bar for installing the
CCTV Camera, in private or personal spaces such as bedrooms,
bathrooms, etc. With some more incidental conditions regarding
CCTV coverage, the impugned order has been passed by the Judge,
Family Court, Mumbai.
5. The factual matrix of the case are that, the Petitioner and
Respondent were married on 20th April, 2006, and after marriage
they started residing at Malad. It is the claim of the Petitioner that,
the flat at Malad was purchased in the name of Respondent-
husband out of the funds provided by the Petitioner's mother.
While the Respondent claims that he bought the flat at Malad from
his own funds. After selling the said flat at Malad, they bought a
new flat i.e. flat No.302, Lotus Heights, Chembur, Mumbai. A
daughter is born from the wedlock on 5th February, 2010, while
they were residing together at Lotus Heights, Chembur.
6. According to the Petitioner the relations between them
started straining due to differences and incidents of domestic
violence against her. When she returned from Mangalore after her
religious tour on 17th May, 2020, she could not open their
matrimonial house, as the Respondent-husband had changed the
locks of the house at Lotus Heights. When she inquired with the
Rajeshri Aher
4/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
Respondent, she did not receive any response, as a result of which
she was constrained to file a non-cognizable complaint. She had to
enter the house with the police aid, by breaking open the locks.
Though the Petitioner tried to reconcile with the Respondent, she
did not receive any positive response. Instead, the Respondent
filed a Divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty, praying for
dissolution of marriage with prayer for injunction to re-enter the
flat.
7. The husband has resided separately after the incident of
breaking locks by the Petitioner in May 2018. It is claimed by him
that he was prevented from entering the matrimonial house. The
Respondent-husband filed Interim Application for injunction at
Exhibit-6. The Petitioner filed her reply to the Interim Application
for injunction on 14th August, 2019. The categorical stand of the
Petitioner was that, the grant of the injunction would result in her
mental harassment. It would be against the well-being of the minor
child, if they are forced to stay with the Respondent in the same
house.
8. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. The
learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Lalwani, submits that the
Petitioner has challenged the order on the ground that, the
Rajeshri Aher
5/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
statutory rights of the Petitioner under the Protection of Women
From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as well as safety of the
Petitioner along with her minor daughter, are endangered. He
further submits that the Judge, Family Court has totally
disregarded the fact that the Interim Application filed by the
Respondent was rejected by the Family Court on 7 th October, 2019,
on the ground that such relief cannot be granted at an interim
stage. A similar relief was claimed by the Respondent before the
Bombay City Civil Court in Suit No.1370 of 2019, in which Notice
of Motion No.4276 of 2018 was dismissed on 20 th July, 2019. This
fact has been suppressed by the Respondent in the proceedings
before the Family Court.
9. It is submitted that considering that the Respondent has not
resided in the matrimonial house at Lotus Heights for almost 7
years and 2 months. The learned Judge has committed an error,
by not taking into account the changed circumstances due to
passage of time. The Respondent has already made his alternate
housing arrangement, on the other hand, the Petitioner has no
other place to go along with her young daughter, who is now 15
years old. She has no source of income. Her husband has not yet
paid a single penny to her towards maintenance, except some
contribution towards the tuition fees of her daughter. His entire
Rajeshri Aher
6/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
income is at his own disposal. In spite of filing the Divorce Petition
in the year 2018 itself, he has not taken steps for final disposal of
the petition. The Respondent has admitted of keeping vigilance on
the Petitioner and her daughter resulting into filing of FIR under
the POCSO Act, 2010 against the employee of Respondent-
husband, raising serious safety concerns.
10. The relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent
is strained beyond reconciliation as there is complete distrust
between the parties. The idea of installation of CCTV Cameras in
the common areas of the house itself is violative of her right of
privacy, more so, in view of the presence of a teenage daughter of
15 years. The relationship between the parties is so explosive that
staying together in the same house will only amount to building
anxiety and further animosity between the parties. The order
impugned has resulted in prejudicing and affecting her statutory
rights under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act
and causing prejudice to the welfare of the minor daughter. The
Family Court has failed to adequately address the issue of welfare
of the minor daughter who has been residing in the matrimonial
home, and is settled in her educational and social environment
surrounding her residence. If the Respondent-husband is allowed
to co-habit, it would risk her emotional well-being and it would
Rajeshri Aher
7/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
psychologically harm the child.
11. The learned Advocate submits that the reliance of the Court
on the registered sale deed which stands in the name of the
Respondent to grant him relief of re-entry in the house is causing
prejudice to her rights to reside in the flat under the DV Act. Right
to reside in the shared household under the DV Act does not
require ownership of the shared household. The Respondent has
deliberately delayed the divorce proceedings by not filing affidavit
of evidence within appropriate time. The interim application is
being used to harass the Petitioner.
12. Per contra, the learned Advocate Ms.Sherigar for the
Respondent has opposed the Writ Petition. According to the
Respondent, he has filed Petition for divorce under Section 13(1)
(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the petition he has made
a prayer, seeking direction to the Petitioner to prevent her from
restraining, refusing or preventing his peaceful entry, use and
occupation of the flat situated at Building 302, Lotus Heights, Road
No.15, Gandhi Maidan, Chembur (East), Mumbai, and directed the
Petitioner to hand over the keys to the Respondent herein
immediately. It is his case that the marital relationship between
him and the Petitioner deteriorated significantly in April 2018. On
23rd April, 2018, the Respondent abruptly blocked the Petitioner
Rajeshri Aher
8/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
on WhatsApp and also ceased all communication with him by
refusing to take his calls. His access to his daughter is also cut off
by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has threatened the Respondent of
filing false police complaints in order to make him comply with her
demands. On 2nd May, 2018, the Petitioner left their matrimonial
house for Mangalore without informing him.
13. On 17th May, 2018, in the absence of the Respondent, the
Petitioner along with her brother, broke into the flat and created a
scene in the residential society. Since 17 th May, 2018, he has been
forcibly and illegally kept out of his own house, which was
purchased in his name in 2008. On 10 th June, 2018, both of them
were called in the police station, and the Petitioner was explained
that the Respondent cannot be restrained from entering his own
house. Despite this, he has been denied entry by the Petitioner.
The Petitioner has changed the locks of the house and she has also
refused to open the door. The Petitioner has filed police complaints
against him. He was threatened by the Petitioner that, if he did not
agree to transfer the flat in her favour, and pay an amount of
Rs.50,000/- towards monthly maintenance, she will file false
complaints against him . He has voluntarily remained out of the
house to defuse the tension. Since 17 th May, 2018, till the date of
filing a Petition, he was prevented from entering the house. He had
Rajeshri Aher
9/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
taken shelter in a guest house for which he is required to spend
huge amount. It is submitted that after enduring the acts of cruelty
at the hands of the Petitioner and threats of false complaints, the
Respondent is left with no other alternative but to seek remedy
from the Court of law.
14. It is submitted that the Petitioner has treated him with
utmost cruelty, due to which he is under constant pressure.
Despite the behaviour of the Petitioner, the Respondent continued
to be patient in the hope that the Petitioner would realize her
mistake and change her attitude and behaviour towards him.
Since the behaviour of the Petitioner became increasingly
inhuman and wicked, he was forced to file the Petition for divorce.
Though he had filed application for interim injunction vide
Exhibit-6 it was dismissed by the Family Court vide order dated
7th October, 2019. This Hon'ble Court vide order dated 14th June,
2024 has quashed the order dated 7 th October, 2019, by directing
to decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties. Thus, the
application is heard and impugned order is passed.
15. The directions of the High Court underscores the importance
of just and suitable adjustments without being influenced by
earlier orders. The Respondent submits that it is his categorical
case that, in spite of being owner of the house, which is a
Rajeshri Aher
10/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
matrimonial house of the parties, he has been restrained by the
Petitioner from entering it and thereby causing great hardship to
him. In spite of the fact that he is owner of two houses, both the
properties are in possession and control of the Petitioner. She,
along with their daughter, is residing in their matrimonial house
and the other flat has been given on rent. Hence, he is seeking
relief of restraining the Petitioner from his entry and peaceful
possession of the house, along with her and their daughter. He has
no intention to dispossess the Petitioner from her matrimonial
house. His only prayer is that he should be allowed entry in the
house owned by him without any resistance from the Petitioner.
16. After hearing the respective counsel at length, from the
pleadings of the parties and the arguments made on their behalf,
what transpires is that, The Application filed by the Respondent
dated 30th June, 2018 came to be decided on 13th June, 2025, i.e.
almost after 7 years of filing of application. Following reliefs are
granted by the Judge, Family Court, vide impugned order dated
13th June, 2025, which are reproduced herein below:
"A. The Respondent is hereby restrained by way of temporary
injunction from obstructing , interfering with, or preventing the
Petitioner from peacefully entering, residing in, and accessing
Flat No.302, Lotus Heights, Road No.15, Gandhi Maidan,
Chembur East, Mumbai - 400 071, until final disposal of the
Rajeshri Aher
11/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
main petition or further orders.
B. The Petitioner is permitted to re-enter and reside in the
said flat, on the condition that:
I. He shall not disturb or interfere with the peaceful
residence of the Respondent and the minor daughter.
C. Both parties are directed to maintain peace and shall not
engage in any form of harassment, coercion, or threat against
each other, either directly or through third parties.
D. The Petitioner shall, at his own expense, install Closed
Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras within a period of seven (07)
days from the date of re-entry into the shared premises.
1. The installation of such CCTV cameras shall be strictly
limited to monitoring only the common areas of the premises,
including but not limited to the main entrance, and any other
mutually agreed upon shared spaces, for the purposes of
ensuring safety, security, and transparency.
2. It is expressly clarified that under no circumstances shall
CCTV cameras be installed in any private or personal spaces
such as bedrooms, bathrooms, or any other area that may
directly or indirectly infringe upon the personal privacy of the
Respondent. The right to privacy, as enshrined under Article 21
of the Constitution of India, shall be strictly respected and
preserved at all times.
3. Furthermore, the access to the live feed and recorded
footage of the said CCTV cameras shall be provided on an equal
and shared basis to both the Petitioner and the Respondent.
4. The footage shall be accessible through a mutually agreed
digital platform or cloud-based storage system, with secure login
credentials being provided to both parties simultaneously.
5. Any attempt by either party to misuse or manipulate the
Rajeshri Aher
12/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
footage, obstruct access, or alter the camera settings in a
manner that compromises transparency or invades the privacy
of the other party shall be deemed a violation of this direction
and may entail appropriate legal consequences.
E. The above directions shall remain in force until further
orders or until final disposal of Petition A No. 1794 of 2018.
F. There shall be no order as to costs."
17. The Respondent is the owner of the house. After the fallout
between the parties, due to deteriorated relationship, he has been
residing away from the Petitioner since May 2018. Though he has
filed petition for divorce on 30th June, 2018 with, interim
application below Exhibit 6. The Application Exhibit-C was
dismissed by the Family Court vide order dated 7 th October, 2019.
Being aggrieved by the said order, Respondent has preferred Writ
Petition No.A 1794 of 2018 before this Court in which the order
passed in Interim Application below Exhibit-6, has been set aside
and the directions have been given to hear the application afresh.
18. The Application Exhibit-6 is an application seeking
injunction, hence the principles for grant of injunction would be
applicable on all fours. Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC provides
for grant of injunction. The key considerations, while granting
injunctions are:
Rajeshri Aher
13/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
(i) Whether the Applicant has made out a prima facie case;
(ii) Whether balance of convenience lies in favour of the
Applicant;
(iii) Whether the Applicant would suffer irreparable loss if
injunction is not granted in his favour.
19. In order to determine whether a prima facie case exist, the
present status of the parties and the prevailing circumstances are
required to be evaluated. Since May 2018, the Respondent has
been residing away from the matrimonial house, having made his
own arrangements. This situation has continued for more than six
years. Both parties are now settled in their respective positions,
awaiting the decree of divorce. The present Application for
injunction is being considered pending the divorce proceeding. The
relationship between the parties is irreconcilable and beyond
repairs. several complaints have been filed by them against each
other. One of such order has even reached upto the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. On this background, the question is whether the
relief claimed by the Respondent could have been granted by the
Court at this stage.
20. In the affidavit of assets and liabilities, the Respondent has
disclosed ownership of three properties-two in Mumbai and one at
Rajeshri Aher
14/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
Mangalore. He now seeks re-entry into the flat at Lotus Heights,
Chembur, which was the shared household between the parties.
The other flat at Tilaknagar, Chembur, was admittedly let out on
rent by the Petitioner. Despite allegations of cruelty, threats,
police complaints, and ill treatment at the hands of the Petitioner,
it seems strange that the Respondent desires to return to the same
household with the Petitioner. This claim is inconsistent with his
own stand. Admittedly, the Respondent is the owner of all the
properties mentioned in the affidavit of assets and liabilities and
he can very well claim his ownership on all those properties.
Therefore, instead of insisting upon re-entry in the matrimonial
house at Lotus Heights, Chembur, the Respondent could have very
well claimed possession of other flat owned by him at Tilaknagar,
Chembur. In view of the choice available with the Respondent, his
claim for re-entry in the matrimonial house on the background of
their estrangement for six years and the intervening events that
have occurred does not bode well, his claim for re-entry into the
shared household does not inspire confidence. In the earlier round,
his application has been dismissed by the Family Court and, this
Court has remanded the matter back without expressing any
opinion on merits of the case, to decide it afresh.
21. Upon such remand, the learned Judge, Family Court,
Rajeshri Aher
15/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
Bandra, Mumbai ought to have considered the changed
circumstances, to assess whether a prima facie case existed.
Considering that both the parties are now settled separately in
their own surroundings. No prima facie case is made out for grant
of the relief by unsettling, the settled position of the parties, held
by them for a long duration. The interim prayer granted will
continue till the disposal of Divorce case. Under such
circumstances, the enforcement of ownership right of the
Respondent could not have been basis of passing of impugned
order.
22. The other aspect which needs to be considered is whether
balance of convenience lies in favour of the Applicant seeking
injunction. The Respondent's claim is based on the fact that he has
been restrained from re-entering the house owned by him. He is
constrained to reside outside his home by making his own
arrangements. Hence, due to the prevailing circumstances it is
causing great harm and prejudice to his right over the property.
On the other hand, the Petitioner is claiming her right to reside in
her matrimonial house in view of provisions contained in DV Act
2005. According to the Petitioner, she is settled in her home, since
the birth of her daughter. Re-entery of the Respondent after such a
long duration, on the backdrop of acrimonious relations, shared by
Rajeshri Aher
16/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
them will unsettle life of the Petitioner and their minor daughter.
Considering that the divorce proceedings are still pending between
the parties for adjudication, as a result of grant of relief to the
Respondent, the same position will continue till the disposal of the
divorce proceedings. Potential damage that is likely to be caused,
to either of the parties is required to be compared. Due to the re-
entry of the Respondent in the matrimonial home, on the
background of acrimonious relationship shared by the parties, the
situation is likely to worsen due to the volatile atmosphere.
23. Though the Respondent is owner of the property, forcing the
parties to share the same household is neither likely to further any
good cause nor prove convenient for the respondent. Assuming
that his allegations of ill-treatment and threats given to him by the
Petitioner have some substance, After weighing the potential harm
and inconvenience that is likely to be caused to both the parties,
the grant of interim injunction is not in the interest of either of the
parties hence balance of convenience cannot be said to be in favour
of the Respondent.
The learned Judge of the Family Court seems to be
overwhelmed by the fact that, inspite of being owner of the house,
Respondent was required to stay away from the house owing to
Rajeshri Aher
17/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
the circumstances. However, the learned Judge has lost sight of
the fact that the Respondent owns one more house, which he
claims that the Petitioner has given it on rent. The other house is
also owned by the Respondent. Therefore, he could have very well
claimed possession of the other flat.
24. The third factor for deciding the grant of temporary
injunction is whether irreparable loss would be caused to the
Applicant if interim relief is not granted in his favour. As stated
above, the Application itself has been reconsidered after its
dismissal in earlier round after a period of seven years. Therefore,
there was no immediate necessity of granting temporary
injunction. The efficacy of immediate relief was already lost due to
passage of time. Both the parties have settled at their respective
places where they were residing. Just because the Respondent is
owner of the house, where the Petitioner is residing, the relief of
re-entry to the Respondent has been granted by the learned Judge
of the Family Court, Mumbai. There was no eminent danger of loss
of ownership of the house, as the Petitioner is also entitled to
reside in the house which is her matrimonial house. Therefore, no
irreparable loss would have been caused to the respondent. Merely
because the Respondent is owner of the property as per record and
relying on some statements made by the Petitioner, in the early
Rajeshri Aher
18/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
days of their estrangement,when the Petitioner has stated that she
has never prevented the Respondent's re-entry. The learned
Judge, Family Court has granted relief to the respondent.
The conduct of the parties and approach against each other
is very much part of record. Merely because the Respondent has
not sought eviction of the Petitioner and considering his
ownership, the learned Judge, Family Court has granted
application filed by the Respondent. The Respondent has not
demonstrated, as to in what manner irreparable loss would be
caused to him if his application is not allowed. The learned Judge,
Family Court has also failed to appreciate that the Respondent had
prayed for similar relief before the City Civil Court by filing
injunction application which was dismissed on 20 th July, 2019.
Despite this fact, being brought to the notice of the Judge, Family
Court by the Petitioner, it has not been Addressed. Without taking
into consideration the suppression of previous litigation, an order
granting injunction is passed
25. Heavy reliance is placed on the willingness shown by the
Respondent to install CCTV Cameras to ensure his presence does
not interfere with the Petitioner's peaceful enjoyment of the
premises. Treating it as a bona fide and balanced approach, on the
background of the contradictions in the Petitioner's statement, the
Rajeshri Aher
19/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
learned Judge, Family Court has held that the allegations made by
the Petitioner raises doubts on the credibility and consistency of
her position. Hence, a view is taken by the learned Judge, that the
Respondent cannot be deprived of his own house. It his held that,
his prayer for co-residence would not cause any prejudice to the
Petitioner.
26. The statement of the Petitioner relied by the Learned Judge,
Family Court was made immediately after the Petition for divorce
had been filed by the Respondent. It was a period during which
there was a possibility of csettlement between the parties. The
statements made by the Petitioner during such period were taken
into account after a passage of almost four years when
circumstances have drastically chnaged and the relations between
the parties have deteriorated with irretrievable breakdown of
their marriage.
27. One more aspect of the matter which needs to be appreciated
is that he owns two houses in Mumbai, one that is subject matter of
the present Writ Petition and the other is rented by the Petitioner.
In spite of owning these two houses, he has made a prayer for
restraining the Petitioner from opposing his entry into the house
in which the petitioner is residing. On one hand the Respondent is
making allegations that he has been harassed and threatened by
Rajeshri Aher
20/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
the Petitioner, there have been various complaints and N.C.
registered by the parties against each other, Various incidents
have been narrated by the Respondent according to which there
have been threats given by the Petitioner, there is use of foul
language by her; apprehension for safety of his life has been
expressed by the Respondent from the Petitioner and her family
members.
28. In the Petition for divorce categorical averments are made
by the Respondent that "the Petitioner's conduct and misdeeds
have been so improper, so as to constitute irretrievable breakdown
of marriage and hence the Respondent cannot live with the
Petitioner except at the risk of his life and career which was
having a devastating effect on Respondent's mental health. The
Petitioner's conduct as aforesaid is reprehensible, amounting to
mental cruelty, torture, agony, callousness, negligence and
deliberate harassment." On such background he has filed the
divorce proceedings, and has made a prayer for re-entry in the
shared household with the petitioner.
29. The above averments made by the Respondent in his
Petition for divorce does not go well with his prayer seeking
directions to share the matrimonial house with the Petitioner and
their daughter. The learned Judge, has totally ignored the fact that
Rajeshri Aher
21/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
the Respondent himself has left the house. Though the allegations
are made by the parties against each other for changing the lock of
the house, the fact remains that since May 2018, the Respondent
is not living with the Petitioner. Though the Respondent has
claimed that he is not seeking eviction of the Petitioner from the
house, and he is only claiming that he should be allowed to re-
enter the house and share the house with the Petitioner, the
circumstances do not warrant grant of such relief for the reason
that as on date, there is a tumultuous relationship between the
parties. If at all the Respondent is allowed to enter the house, it
would further create complex situation resulting in day-to-day
confrontation with each other. The installation of CCTV is not
going to change the feelings and grudge held by the parties against
each other. CCTV is not going to be a deterrent for any, incident
likely to occur while sharing the household. Since the Petitioner is
residing in the said house since long along with her young
daughter, she is in settled position in the said house. Installation of
CCTV Cameras though directed to be installed to safeguard and
ensure that no explosive situation should arise between the
parties, the fact remains that the Petitioner is residing with the
young daughter of 15 years in the house. The CCTV Cameras would
certainly curtail free-movement in the house and it would infringe
on their right to privacy while residing in the house. The persons
Rajeshri Aher
22/22 17 wp 9600 of 2025, j.doc
residing in a house cannot confine themselves to their rooms, the
common areas always require to be used freely by the persons
living in the said house, constant surveillance by the CCTV
Cameras would make the parties uncomfortable.
This Court while remanding the matter back to the family
court, has directed to decided the application afresh on its own
merits. While deciding the matter on merits, the Judge, Family
court has failed to take into account the changed circumstances,
due to passage of time. As a result, there was no prima facie case
for the respondent. The practical difficulties likely to arise are not
foreseen while passing the order. The rights of the parties with
respect to property, would be a matter of adjudication of right of
the parties, while deciding Divorce petition. Therefore No
irreparable loss is likely to cause to the respondent it relief of re-
entry is not granted
30. The Impugned order dated 13 th June, 2025 passed by the
Judge, Family Court, Mumbai, below Exhibit- 6 being contrary to
the key considerations for grant of injunction, and having failed to
satisfy those considerations, deserves to be quashed and set aside,
accordingly Rule is made absolute in terms of prayers Clause (a).
[MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.]
Rajeshri Aher
