← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/2744/2016disposed off

Mrs. Anuya Vinit Ajgaonkar @ Anuya Anil Khandeparkar v. Mr. Vinit Mukund Ajgaonkar

2016-08-02Hon'Ble Smt. Justice R.P. Sondurbaldota2 pages

Rane * 1/2 * Tuesday,2.8.2016 WP-2744-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2744 OF 2016 Mrs. Anuya Vinit Ajgaonkar .....Petitioner V/s.

Vinit Mukund Ajgaonkar .....Respondent * * * * * * Ms. Shilpa A. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent.

CORAM :- SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.

DATED :- 2ND AUGUST, 2016.

P.C. :- 1).

This petition challenges the order dated 14th May, 2015 by which the Family Court dismissed the petitioner's application at Exhibit-21 for an injunction to restrain the respondent, husband from visiting and/or entering the house of her parents which is the flat adjoining to the flat of the respondent. The application refers to the incident dated 24th October, 2014 when the respondent is alleged to have, in the evening at about 6.00 p.m. started ringing the door bell repeatedly, calling continuously on the mobile, calling on the intercom, banging on the door of her parents and shouting in

Rane * 2/2 * Tuesday,2.8.2016 WP-2744-2016 the name of the child. The respondent had allegedly become uncontrollable and was talking loudly to himself. He was sitting outside the main door on the door mat. When a visitor came to the house, the respondent tried to barge in the house of the parents but was stopped by the mother of the petitioner. The respondent in his affidavit-in-reply to the application has stated at para-14 that, he has his own self respect and has no intention of visiting the house of the parents of the petitioner. The reply also indicates the allegations of the respondent that the parents of the petitioner have installed CCTV cameras on their door and the focus of the CCTV camera is on his door. In my opinion, the statement of the respondent, in his affidavit-in-reply that he has no intention to enter the house of the respondent, is sufficient to take care of the anxiety of the petitioner. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned order. The petition is dismissed.

(SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)