YAMUNA MARUTI GARUD vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. GOVT PLEADER AND ORS — WP/4218/2026

Case under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Sr. Citizen Act Section NA. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 05th May 2026.

CNR: HCBM010088732026

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

WP/5046/2026

Filing Date

20-02-2026

Registration No

WP/4218/2026

Registration Date

02-04-2026

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR

Bench Type

Single

Category

FAMILY LAW ( 16 )

Sub-Category

MAINTENANCE ( 6 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

05th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Acts & Sections

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Sr. Citizen Act Section NA

Petitioner(s)

YAMUNA MARUTI GARUD

Adv. Indrajeet Joshi

Respondent(s)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. GOVT PLEADER AND ORS

SANDIP RAVINDRA GARUD

PRIYA SANDIP GARUD

SENIOR POLICE INSPECTOR BANDRA WEST POLICE STATION MUMBAI

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR

06-04-2026

FRESH ADMISSION

05-05-2026

FOR COMPLIANCE

28-04-2026

HIGH ON BOARD (HOB)

21-04-2026

FRESH ADMISSION

Orders

05-05-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR

Case Summary: WP/4218/2026 The Bombay High Court disposed of petitioner Yamuna Maruti Garud's writ petition seeking clear possession of premises following a Maintenance Tribunal order. The court found no impediment to possession since respondents had been evicted and an inventory prepared, directing the petitioner to take possession. The court further ordered respondent No. 4 to call upon respondents 2 and 3 to collect their inventoried articles, with notice that unclaimed articles would be disposed of as unclaimed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/4218/2026 The Bombay High Court disposed of petitioner Yamuna Maruti Garud's writ petition seeking clear possession of premises following a Maintenance Tribunal order. The court found no impediment to possession since respondents had been evicted and an inventory prepared, directing the petitioner to take possession. The court further ordered respondent No. 4 to call upon respondents 2 and 3 to collect their inventoried articles, with notice that unclaimed articles would be disposed of as unclaimed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case