The facts in nutshell are that the appellant filed a civil suit seeking decree of permanent as well as mandatory injunction with the averments that she is wife of the respondent-defendant. She averred that she purchased the plot no.D-81, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur from her own sources on which construction of a restaurant was raised by the appellant as well as respondent jointly. It was submitted that from the income generated from the restaurant, the parties constructed a hotel on the plot purchased in front of the restaurant which comprised of their residential house also. It was alleged that with the passage of time, the respondent started harassing and treating the appellant with cruelty. When the appellant had gone to his mother’s house recently in August, 2018, in her absence, the respondent badly damaged and destroyed her residential portion and removed the number of her domestic articles and amenities. Thus, she prayed that the respondent may be restrained from interfering in her right to use and enjoy the joint property of D-81, not to damage, alter and create any third party interest in her residential portion and to restore her residential portion and amenities in the former position. Along with the suit, she filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 with the prayer that during pendency of the suit, the respondent may be restrained from interfering with use and occupation by the appellant of their joint property comprising of D-81, Lazeez Hotel, Janpath, Jaipur as well as to injunct him from changing the status of the residential premises.
