NANDKUMAR MOHAN BHAT vs ADITI NANDKUMAR BHAT ALIAS ADIT SHRAIKANT KULKARNI Advocate - PRASAD B KULKARNI — FCA/21/2026

Case under Family Court Act Section 19. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 08th May 2026.

CNR: HCBM010094692026

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

FCA/5426/2026

Filing Date

23-02-2026

Registration No

FCA/21/2026

Registration Date

16-03-2026

Judge

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE BHARATI DANGRE , HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT MANJUSHA AJAY DESHPANDE

Coram

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE BHARATI DANGRE , HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT MANJUSHA AJAY DESHPANDE

Bench Type

Division

Category

FAMILY LAW ( 16 )

Sub-Category

DIVORCE/DISSOLUTION ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

08th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Acts & Sections

Family Court Act Section 19

Petitioner(s)

NANDKUMAR MOHAN BHAT

Adv. KAPIL PRAKASH SHETYE

Respondent(s)

ADITI NANDKUMAR BHAT ALIAS ADIT SHRAIKANT KULKARNI Advocate - PRASAD B KULKARNI

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE BHARATI DANGRE , HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT MANJUSHA AJAY DESHPANDE

27-03-2026

FOR CIRCULATION

08-05-2026

FOR ADMISSION

17-04-2026

FOR CIRCULATION

Orders

08-05-2026
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE BHARATI DANGRE,HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT MANJUSHA AJAY DESHPANDE

The Bombay High Court remanded the permanent alimony claim to Family Court, finding the lower court had awarded Rs.15,00,000 without any formal prayer or evidence on this issue. The court upheld the divorce decree and child maintenance (Rs.20,000/month with 10% yearly increase) but directed the wife to amend pleadings to properly claim permanent alimony, allowing the husband to respond with evidence, with a six-month deadline for adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court remanded the permanent alimony claim to Family Court, finding the lower court had awarded Rs.15,00,000 without any formal prayer or evidence on this issue. The court upheld the divorce decree and child maintenance (Rs.20,000/month with 10% yearly increase) but directed the wife to amend pleadings to properly claim permanent alimony, allowing the husband to respond with evidence, with a six-month deadline for adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case