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 Ors …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 23938 OF 2026 Nayan V Mehta ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra Through Govt Pleader and Ors …Respondents 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 Petitions. Mr. Himanshu Mehta, the Petitioner in WP/2835/2026, Mrs. Biraj Mehta, Respondent No.4 in both Petitions and Mr. Nayan 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 ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2026.10.03 14:47:53 +0530 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 6th 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, 5th 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