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 12th 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 . 2. Briefly the facts are as follows: - M.S.Thatte MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Digitally signed by MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Date: 2026.09.18 10:01:00 +0530 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 30th 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, 3rd 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 10th 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 10th 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 10th 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 3rd 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 12th 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, 3rd 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