2021 INSC 0796
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
I.A. NOS. 59776 AND 60354 OF 2021
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2634 OF 2017
JAIDEV RAJNIKANT SHROFF                    ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
POONAM JAIDEV SHROFF        ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
B.R. Gavai, J.
1. These   two   interlocutory   applications   filed   by   the
respondent­wife   are   part   of   series   of   a   long   drawn
acrimonious litigation between the husband and wife.
2. For   the   disposal   of   the   present   interlocutory
applications, we need not refer to the facts in detail.   Suffice
it to say that the appellant­husband and the respondent­wife
were married to each other on 27 th
 November 2004. However,
the   relationship   between   them   soured.     Various   cases
1

including   the   FIRs   were   filed   by   both   the   husband   and   wife
against each other.
3. The   appellant­husband   filed   a   divorce   petition   being
Petition   No.   A­2742   of   2015   before   the   Family   Court   at
Bandra,   Mumbai   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   “Family
Court”)  seeking  divorce on  the  ground  of  cruelty.    The  same
was   filed   in   the   month   of   October   2015.     During   the
pendency of the said divorce petition, the appellant­husband
lodged   a   complaint   against   the   respondent­wife   with   the
Khar   Police   Station,   making   certain   serious   allegations
against   the   respondent­wife.   On   the   basis   of   the   said
complaint,   an   FIR   being   FIR   No.   169   of   2016   came   to   be
registered   by   the   said   police   station.     It   is   the   contention   of
the   appellant­husband   that   after   the   said   FIR   was   lodged,
the   respondent­wife   voluntarily   left   82,   Pali   Hill,   Bandra
(West),   Mumbai   –   400   050   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the
“said   house”),   wherein   the   appellant­husband   and   the
respondent­wife   were   residing   together.   According   to   the
appellant­husband,   the   respondent­wife   along   with   their
daughter   Rudritara   went   to   38,   Pali   Hill,   Bandra,   i.e.,   her
2

mother’s   residence.     The   appellant­husband   thereafter   filed
an application seeking an order of injunction restraining the
respondent­wife   from   entering   the   said   house.   The   Family
Court   vide   order   dated   22 nd
  April   2016,   allowed   the   said
application,   thereby   granting   an   injunction   restraining   the
respondent­wife   from   entering   the   said   house.     Being
aggrieved by the order passed by the Family Court dated 22 nd
April   2016,   the   respondent­wife   filed   a   writ   petition   being
Writ   Petition   No.   6029   of   2016   before   the   Bombay   High
Court.   Vide   order   dated   24 th
  October   2016,   the   High   Court
allowed   the   said   writ   petition   filed   by   the   respondent­wife.
Being   aggrieved   thereby,   the   appellant­husband   has
approached   this   Court.     That   is   how   the   main   appeal   has
travelled up to this Court.
4. Initially, when the matter came up before this Court on
15 th
  November 2016, this Court issued notice only to explore
the   possibility   of   an   amicable   resolution   of   the   dispute.
However,   this   Court   in   its   order   dated   27 th
  January   2017,
recorded   that   the   settlement   between   the   parties,   at   that
stage,   was   not  possible.    This  Court,   therefore,   enlarged   the
3

scope   of   the   notice   issued   by   this   Court   vide   the   said   order
and   expressed   that   they   were   inclined   to   examine   the
impugned order of the High Court of Bombay on merits.  Vide
the said order, this Court also passed an order directing the
parties to maintain status quo.
5. When   this   matter   was   listed   before   this   Court   on   14 th
September  2017,  this  Court  recorded  that  without   prejudice
to   the   rights   and   contentions   of   the   parties   in   the   present
proceedings,   the   parties   are   agreeable   to   explore   the
possibility   of   an   amicable   resolution   of   their   dispute.     As
such,   by   consent,   Mrs.   Sadhna   Ramachandran,   Advocate
was appointed as a Mediator.  It further appears that in order
to   explore   the   possibility   of   amicable   settlement,   this   Court
vide   order   dated   22 nd
  January   2018,   directed   the   parties   to
remain present in person on 30 th
 January 2018 at 02.00 pm.
The order of this Court dated 30 th
 January 2018 would reveal
that   this   Court   had   discussed   the   matter   in   Chambers   with
the parties to find out some amicable resolution and a week’s
time   was   granted   to   the   parties   to   think   over   to   come   to   an
amicable   resolution.     However,   vide   order   dated   13 th
4

February   2018,   this   Court   recorded   that   there   is   no
possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties.
6. This   Court,   again   on   21 st
  August   2018,   recorded   that
the   matter   needed   to   be   resolved   through   mediation.     This
Court,   therefore,   appointed   Shri   Sriram   Panchu,   Senior
Advocate,   as   a   Mediator   to   mediate  the   dispute   between   the
parties.     Vide   the   said   order,   this   Court   also   stayed   all   the
criminal proceedings pending between the parties.
7. Shri   Sriram   Panchu,   the   learned   Mediator   submitted
his   report   on   19 th
  February   2019,   stating   therein   that   the
differences between the parties were too wide and it was not
possible to  resolve  the  matter  at  that  stage.   Hence, he  filed
the closure report.  Further report of the Mediator dated 12 th
April   2019,   would   reveal   that   by   e­mail   dated   25 th
  March
2019, counsel for the respondent­wife has informed him that
while   adjourning   the   matter   by   four   weeks,   this   Court   had
issued   an   oral   direction   to   the   parties   to   appear   once   more
before   the   Mediator.   The   report   further   revealed   that,
however,   both   the   parties   by   self/through   counsel   have
expressed the view that  there  is no  point  in  continuing   with
5

the   mediation.     In   the   circumstances,   vide   the   said   report
dated   12 th
  April   2019,   the   learned   Mediator   has   observed
that   the   mediation   cannot   be   carried   on   and   was   therefore
closed.
8. On   30 th
  January   2020,   this   Court   passed   the   following
order:­
“Heard. 
Mr. P. Chidambaram and Mr. Shyam Divan,
learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for   the
respondent ­ Poonam Jaidev Shroff, state that the
respondent   ­   Poonam   Jaidev   Shroff   will   locate
rented   premises   of   her   choice   which   shall   be
equivalent   to   the   residence   at   82,   Pali   Hill,
Bandra   (West),   Mumbai   –   400   050,   for   her
residence. 
Dr.   A.M.   Singhvi,   learned   Senior   Counsel
appearing   for   the   appellant–Jaidev   Rajnikant
Shroff,   states   that   the   appellant   ­   3   Jaidev
Rajnikant   Shroff   will   pay   the   rent   for   the   said
premises. 
It   is   understood   that   this   arrangement   will
at   the   moment   continue   till   the   disposal   of   the
pending divorce petition. 
Mr. P. Chidambaram and Mr. Shyam Divan,
learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for   the
respondent,   prays   for   time   to   make   a   statement
6

regarding   the   disposal   of   the   divorce   petition
pending in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai.
List   these   matters   on   26.02.2020   (a   non­
miscellaneous day).”
9. Again, when the matter was listed before this Court on
6 th
 March 2020, this Court passed the following order:­
“We   have   heard   the   question   of   respondent   ­
wife’s accommodation at length. 
We are of the view that in the circumstances
of the case, the interests of justice would be best
served   if   the   Registrar   of   the   Family   Court   at
Bandra,   Mumbai,   is   directed   to   engage   an
architect from the panel of architects maintained
by   the   Bombay   High   Court   for   finding   out
appropriate   accommodation   for   the   residence   of
the respondent – wife. 
It   is   made   clear   that   the   residence   shall   be
approximately   similar   to   the   size   of   82,   Pali   Hill,
Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050 and located as
far as possible in Bandra and Juhu area. 
After   such   accommodation   is   located,   the
Registrar   shall   submit   a   report   forthwith   to   this
Court   pointing   out   the   location   of   such
accommodation   along   with   rent   so   as   to   enable
this   Court   to   pass   further   orders.   We   further
direct that if the accommodation is approved, the
petitioner   –   husband   shall   regularly   pay   such
rent to the landlord of the tenanted premises. 
7

List these matters after two months.”
10. Pursuant  to   the   aforesaid   orders   passed   by   this   Court,
Smt.   Kishori   Joshi,   Architect,   Valuers   and   Engineers   was
engaged   by   the   Registrar   of   the   Family   Court.     On   3 rd
February 2021, Smt. Joshi submitted a list of the properties,
which   in   the   architect’s   opinion   were   similar   to   the   said
house.   The   communication   dated   3 rd
  February   2021   would
reveal   that   in   the   architect’s   opinion,   the   properties   listed
were   outcome   of   their   best   efforts   to   provide   a   suitable
accommodation to the respondent­wife as per her liking and
will.     As   many   as   17   properties   have   been   listed   in   the   list
sent along with the communication dated 3 rd
 February 2021.
However,   vide   communication   dated   10 th
  February   2021,   it
was   informed   on   behalf   of   the   respondent­wife   that   none   of
the   properties   shown   in   the   list   were   similar   to   the   said
house.  
11. In   this   background,   the   respondent­wife   has
approached   this   Court   with   the   two   interlocutory
8

applications.   The   prayers   in   I.A.   No.   60354   of   2021,   read
thus:­
(a) “allow   the   present   application   and   vacate
the   interim   order   dated   27 th
  January   2017
passed   by   this   Hon’ble   Court   in   the
aforesaid appeal and permit the Respondent
and   the   minor   child   to   reside   in   the
matrimonial home;
(b) allow   the   present   Application   and   dismiss
the   SLP(Civil)   No.   32264   of   2016   converted
into Civil Appeal No. 2634 of 2017;”
12. The prayers in I.A. No. 59776 of 2021, read thus:­
a) “clarify the order dated 06.03.2020 & allow the
Respondent   and   the   minor   daughter   to
forthwith   move   into   82   Pali   Hill   (matrimonial
Home) and the Respondent be paid an amount
of   Rs.   75.26   Lakhs   per   annum   for   the   staff   of
the matrimonial home and maintenance as per
actuals along with arrears for living outside the
matrimonial   home   @   Rs.   35.37   Lakhs   per
month from 07.04.2016 till the date of passing
of the Order; 
b) In   the   alternative,   clarify   the   order   dated
06.03.2020   &   an   amount   of   Rs   35.37   Lakhs
per month be paid to the Respondent which is
the   monthly   rent   amount   of   the   matrimonial
home along with cost of running & maintaining
the   premises   as   per   actuals   and   the   arrears
9

from  07.04.2016 till the date of passing  of  the
Order.”
13. We   have   heard   Shri   Shyam   Divan,   learned   Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant­respondent wife
and   Dr.   Abhishek   Manu   Singhvi,   learned   Senior   Counsel
appearing on behalf of the non­applicant­appellant husband.
14. Shri   Divan   submitted   that   though   the   respondent­wife
has   succeeded   before   the   High   Court,   on   account   of   the
status quo order passed by this Court, the respondent­wife is
deprived   of   staying   in   the   said   house,   which   is   the   shared
household   as   contemplated   under   Section   2(s)   of   the
Protection   of   Women   from   Domestic   Violence   Act,   2005
(hereinafter   referred   to  as   the   “DV  Act”).    He   submitted  that
the   appellant­husband   is   earning   hundreds   of   crores   per
year,   whereas   the   respondent­wife   and   the   daughter
Rudritara   have   to   survive   on   a   meagre   amount   of   Rs.   12
lakhs per month.
15. Shri   Divan   further   submitted   that   this   Court   had
directed an architect to be appointed by the Family Court to
10

find out a house similar to the one, wherein she was residing
with   her   husband.   He   submitted   that   the   properties
suggested   by   the   architect,   by   no   stretch   of   imagination,
could   be   said   to   be   houses,   which   are   similar   to   the   said
house.   He submitted that on one hand, the respondent­wife
is   compelled   to   stay   with   her   aged   mother,   whereas   on   the
other hand, the appellant­husband is residing  in the shared
household   with   a   lady   with   whom   he   is   engaged   in   an
adulterous   relationship.     He   submitted   that   the   appellant­
husband has been emboldened on account of the status quo
order   passed   by   this   Court   and   has   entered   into   an
adulterous relationship with a lady and also fathered a child
in   the   said   relationship.     It   is   submitted   that   the   appellant­
husband   is   making   all   efforts   to   move   into   the   matrimonial
house with his mistress and as such, has abused the process
of the court and manipulated legal process in filing fabricated
petition. 
16. Shri   Divan   therefore   submitted   that   taking   into
consideration   the   conduct   of   the   appellant­husband,   the
order   of   status   quo   granted   by   this   Court   needed   to   be
11

vacated.     He   submitted   that   in   the   alternative,   since   the
respondent­wife   was   compelled   to   reside   with   her   husband,
the   order   dated   6 th
  March   2020   needed   to   be   clarified   that
the respondent­wife and the minor daughter be permitted to
move   to   the   said   house   and   the   appellant­husband   be
directed to pay  an amount of Rs.75.26 lakhs per annum  for
the   staff   at   the   matrimonial   home   and   maintenance   as   per
actuals   along   with   arrears.   He   submitted   that   in   the
alternative, it is necessary to clarify the order dated 6 th
 March
2020   and   direct   an   amount   of   Rs.35.37   lakhs   to   be   paid   to
the   respondent­wife   by   the   appellant­husband,   which   was   a
monthly rent of the matrimonial home along with the cost of
running   and   maintaining   the   premises   as   per   actuals   and
the arrears from 7 th
 April 2016.
17. Dr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of   the   appellant­husband,   on   the   contrary,   submitted   that
the   present   applications   are   an   attempt   to   seek   a   review   of
the order passed by this Court, which has been passed after
hearing   the   parties.   He   submitted   that   the   appellant­
husband   is   willing   to   pay   the   rent   for   the   premises,   if   the
12

suitable   premises   is   chosen   by   the   respondent­wife   and   she
shifted   her   residence   to   the   said   premises.   However,   the
present   applications   are   an   attempt   to   get   much   more
amount than to which the respondent wife has been found to
be entitled by an elaborate order passed by the Family Court
dated 30 th
 July 2018.  He submitted that the respondent­wife
herself  is  a   rich   lady   having  huge   properties,  having   income
more   than   sufficient   to   sustain   herself.   He   submitted   that,
however,   the   respondent­wife   is   trying   to   take   an   undue
advantage   of   the   fact   that   the   appellant­husband   is   a   rich
person.   He   submitted   that   the   entire   conduct   of   the
respondent­wife would show that she has been unreasonable
and   adamant.   He   submitted   that   the   order   dated   30 th
January   2020 passed by  this  Court,  would  itself  clarify  that
the   respondent­wife   had   made   a   statement   that   she   will
locate   a   rented   premises   of   her   choice,   which   shall   be
equivalent   to   the   said   house.     The   appellant­husband   had
also   expressed   his   willingness   to   pay   the   rent   for   the   said
premises.     By   another   order   dated   21 st
  August   2018,   this
Court   had   directed   an   architect   to   be   appointed   from   the
13

panel   of   Architects,   maintained   by   the   Bombay   High   Court.
Accordingly,   an   architect   was   appointed   by   the   Registrar   of
the   Family   Court,   who   has   identified   as   many   as   17
properties.     He   submitted   that   it   is   impossible   to   find   out   a
property,   which   can   be   found   to   be   identical   with   the   said
house.     He,   however,   submitted   that   the   properties,   which
have been identified by  the architect, are similar  in terms of
the facilities and luxuries, as are available in the said house.
18. Dr.   Singhvi   further   submitted   that   though   the
appellant­husband has offered an amount of Rs.100 crore as
a   one­time   settlement,   the   respondent­wife   has   refused   the
said offer and has demanded an amount of Rs.600 crore.
19. Though   the   appellant   and   respondent   have   made
serious   allegations   against   each   other,   we   do   not   find   it
necessary to go into those allegations. A perusal of the record
would   reveal   that   the   relations   between   the   parties   are
strained to such an extent that even the efforts made by this
Court   to   arrive   at   a   settlement   by   personally   discussing   the
matter   in   Chambers   with   them,   have   failed.     On   two
occasions,   this   Court   has   appointed   Mediators,   who   were
14

Advocates.   However,   the   mediation   proceedings   could   not
succeed.   In   such   a   situation,   to   compel   the   parties   to   live
together  in one house, would not be in the interest of either
of  the   parties.    With  the   history  of   such   acrimony  and  filing
of   criminal   cases   against   each   other,   such   an   order,   rather
than   benefiting   the   parties,   would   be   detrimental   to   their
interests. 
20. The   order   passed   by   this   Court   dated   30 th
  January
2020, would reveal that this Court has attempted to balance
the equities.   On the first occasion, the respondent­wife had
herself   made   a   statement   that   she   would   identify   a   similar
property   and   the   appellant­husband   had   made   a   statement
that   he   was   willing   to   pay   the   rent   of   such   a   property
identified   by   the   respondent­wife.     On   the   second   occasion,
this   Court   vide   order   dated   21 st
  August   2018,   directed   an
architect   to   be   appointed   from   the   panel   of   Architects.     In
accordance   with   the   directions   passed   by   this   Court,   an
architect   was   appointed   and   she   has   made   an   elaborate
exercise   of   identifying   various   properties.     It   will   be   relevant
to refer to the contents of the letter dated 3 rd
 February 2021,
15

addressed   by   the   Architect   to   the   Registrar   of   the   Family
Court:­
“We   are   producing   herewith   Property   Listings
similar to 82, Pali Hill, Bandra (West), Mumbai in
our best effort to provide suitable accommodation
to Mrs. Poonam Shroff as per her liking and will. 
The   shortlisted   properties   in   Upscale   locales
assuredly   possess   the   potential   to   exhibit   the
desired   degree   of   luxe   &   comfort   as   expected   by
Mrs.   Poonam   Shroff   evident   from   the   mail   dated
07.10.2020   from   Madhu   Chaudhary
(madhuchaudhary@nnico.com)   from   Naik   Naik   &
Company representing Mrs. Poonam Shroff.”
21. It could thus be seen that in the Architect’s opinion, the
properties   in   the   list   are   similar   to   the   said   house   and   that
they   have   made   their   best   efforts   to   provide   a   suitable
accommodation to the respondent­wife as per her liking and
will.     It   has   further   been   stated   in   the   said   communication
that   the   shortlisted   properties   in   the   upscale   locales
assuredly possess the potential to exhibit the desired degree
of luxe and comfort as expected by the respondent­wife.  The
list  annexed  to  the   communication  of  the  Architect   contains
as   many   as   17   properties   in   the   upscale   area   of   Bandra,
Juhu, Santacruz and Khar.  Even if we leave aside properties
16

No. 4 and 12, which according to the respondent­wife are not
suitable   for   residential   accommodation,   there   are   still   15
properties   available   for   rent.     We   do   not   like   to   go   into   the
details of all the properties.   However, we will reproduce the
details   of   few   properties   with   the   remarks   given   by   the
respondent­wife,   to   examine   the   correctness   of   the   stand
taken by the respondent­wife:­
17

Sr. Name   of
Premise Location Area Accommodation
Type Rent
per
Month
in
Rupees Remarks Remarks   on   behalf   of
Poonam Shroff
1. Independent
Building Carter
Road,
Bandra
(West) 12,000
Sqft
Ground   +
6 (terrace) Independent
Building 25
lakhs Sea
View Smaller   as   compared   to
82,   Pali   Hill   and   hence
cannot   be   an   alternate
equivalent accommodation
in terms of the order dated
6 th
  March,   2020   of   the
Hon’ble   Apex   Court   in
Civil   Appeal   No.   2634   of
2017
2. Bungalow Juhu   Tara
Road,   Near
Soho House 6000   Sqft
+   7000
Sqft
(Garden) +
4000   Sqft
(Terrace) Bungalow 30
Lakhs Sea
Facing Further details required
3. Vasant Kunj Santacruz  7500 Sqft Duplex­13 th
  &
14 th
 Floor 25
Lakhs Fully
done   up
with   Sea
View Smaller   as   compared   to
82,   Pali   Hill   and   hence
cannot   be   alternate
equivalent accommodation
18

9. Silver Sands Carter Road 4500   Sqft
+   1000
Sqft
(terrace) Penthouse­
4BHK 12
Lakhs Includes
terrace,
Sea
Facing Smaller   as   compared   to
82,   Pali   Hill   and   hence
cannot   be   an   alternate
equivalent accommodation
in terms of the order dated
6 th
  March,   2020   of   the
Hon’ble   Apex   Court   in
Civil   Appeal   No.   2634   of
2017
11. Raj Mahal Juhu 10000
Sqft Bungalow­4
BHK 25
Lakhs Sea
Facing,
has
Garden
&
Terrace Smaller   as   compared   to
82,   Pali   Hill   and   hence
cannot   be   an   alternate
equivalent accommodation
in terms of the order dated
6 th
  March,   2020   of   the
Hon’ble   Apex   Court   in
Civil   Appeal   No.   2634   of
2017
19

22. The   aforesaid   chart   would   reveal   that   though   the
property   at   Serial   No.   1   is   an   independent   bungalow   at
Carter   Road, Bandra, with  a sea  view,  the remarks given  by
the respondent­wife is that the same is smaller as compared
to   the   said   house,   and   therefore,   cannot   be   an   alternate
equivalent accommodation in terms of the order of this Court
dated 6 th
 March 2020.  Insofar as the property at Serial No. 2
is concerned, the same is also a sea facing bungalow at Juhu
Tara   Road.     However,   the   remarks  given   by   the  respondent­
wife   is   that   further   details   are   required.     The   rent   for   these
two houses is Rs.25 lakhs and Rs.30 lakhs respectively.  The
property at Serial No. 3 is a duplex on 13 th
  and 14 th
  floor.   It
is fully done up with a sea view.  However, the remarks given
by   the   respondent­wife   is   that   it   is   smaller   as   compared   to
the   said   house   and   therefore,   cannot   be   an   alternate
equivalent accommodation.   The property at Serial No. 9 is a
Pentahouse­4BHK   with   1000   sq.   ft.   of   terrace   and   also   sea
facing.  However, the remarks given by the respondent­wife is
that it is not similar to the one offered at Serial No. 1.     The
property  at  Serial  No.  11  is  a  10,000  sq.  ft.  bungalow.    It  is
20

sea facing and has a garden and a terrace.  The rent is Rs.25
lakhs.  However, a similar remark is given by the respondent­
wife even in respect of this property also.
23. In our view, to stretch the word ‘similar’ as used in the
order dated 6 th
 March 2020, to be totally identical to the said
house, would be unrealistic.   It will be difficult to find out a
house identical to the  said house having  the same area, the
same facilities and the same luxuries.  The word ‘similar’ has
to   be  construed   as  providing   the   same  degree  of   luxury   and
comfort   as   is   available   in   the   said   house.     We   have   no
hesitation   in   observing   that   the   conduct   of   the   respondent­
wife in firstly  not choosing any  house as per  her  choice and
secondly,   in   rejecting   all   the   properties,   which   have   been
identified by  the  Architect, only  on the ground that  they  are
not   similar   and   therefore,   not   in   accordance   with   the   order
dated 6 th
 March 2020, to say the least is unreasonable.
24. As already discussed hereinabove, if we allow the prayer
and allow the respondent­wife to move into the said house, it
will rather than subserving the interest of the parties, would
be   detrimental   to   their   interests.   The   record   and   the
21

pendency   of   the   criminal   proceedings   would   show   that   the
relations between the parties are so strained that if they are
permitted  to  live  in   the   said  house,  it  would  lead  to  nothing
else but further criminal proceedings.  
25. Insofar   as   the   alternate   prayer   with   regard   to   payment
of   Rs.35.37   lakhs   per   month   is   concerned,   it   will   be
necessary to refer to the order of the Family Court dated 30 th
July   2018.     The   Family   Court,   by   an   elaborate   order,   after
recording   the   details   about   the   income   of   the   parties,   had
directed   an   interim   maintenance   to   be   paid   to   the
respondent­wife at the rate of Rs. 7 lakhs per month and to
the minor at the rate of Rs. 5 lakhs per month.  If the prayer
for   payment   of   an   amount   is   allowed,   it   will   be   giving   an
additional   amount   to   the   respondent­wife.   It   will   amount   to
awarding   an   amount   which   is   much   more   than   the   one   to
which  the  respondent­wife   was  found   entitled   by  the   Family
Court.     It   may   not   be   out   of   place   to   mention   that   the   said
order   has   been   passed   on   30 th
  July   2018   i.e.   during   the
pendency of the present appeal.   We, therefore, find that the
alternate relief as prayed also cannot be granted.
22

26. Insofar   as   the   vacation   of   status   quo   is   concerned,   the
order   was   passed   after   hearing   the   parties.   Apart   from   the
fact that it may amount to review of the order, we do not find
that in the facts of the present case, the said order needs to
be vacated.
27. A   perusal   of   the   order   passed   by   this   Court   dated   30 th
January 2020, would reveal that this Court intended to pass
the order directing the appellant­husband to pay the rent till
the   disposal   of   the   pending   divorce   petition.   The   divorce
petition   has   been   pending   before   the   Family   Court   for   a
period   of   last   6   years.     Taking   into   consideration   the   facts
and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it will
be in the interest of both the parties that the divorce petition
pending   before   the   Family   Court   is   decided   expeditiously   so
that   there   can   be   at   least   some   quietus   to   the   acrimonious
litigation pending between the parties.
28. In   the   result,   we   do   not   find   merit   in   both   the
interlocutory   applications   and   the   same   are   rejected.
However,   we   clarify   that   in   the   event,   the   respondent­wife
decides to shift to any of the properties mentioned in the list
23

annexed   with   the   report   of   the   Architect   dated   3 rd
  February
2021   or   she   locates   any   of   the   rented   premises   as   per   her
choice, the  appellant­husband  shall  pay  the  rent of the  said
premises from the date on which such premises are taken on
rent.     However,   taking   into   consideration   that   the   highest
rent   of   the   properties   identified   by   the   Architect   is   Rs.   30
lakhs   per   month,   the   appellant­husband   would   be   liable   to
pay rent to the maximum of Rs. 30 lakhs per month.
29. In   the   facts   and   circumstances,   the   Family   Court   is
directed   to   expedite   the   proceedings   of   the   Petition   No.   A­
2742 of 2015 and decide it as expeditiously as possible.   No
order as to costs.  
……....….......................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
.........................J.       
     [B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 03, 2021.
24