PRAVIN RAJARAM KEDARE vs SHITAL PRAVIN KEDARE@ SHITAL VIJAY PANPATIL — FCA/50/2026
Case under Family Court Act Section 19. Next hearing: 03rd July 2026.
CNR: HCBM010226472026
Next Hearing
03rd July 2026
Filing Number
FCA/13198/2026
Filing Date
30-04-2026
Registration No
FCA/50/2026
Registration Date
05-05-2026
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
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PRAVIN RAJARAM KEDARE
Adv. SUMEDH S MODAK
Respondent(s)
SHITAL PRAVIN KEDARE@ SHITAL VIJAY PANPATIL
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE BHARATI DANGRE , HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT MANJUSHA AJAY DESHPANDE
FOR CIRCULATION
FOR CIRCULATION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | FOR CIRCULATION |
| 03-07-2026 | FOR CIRCULATION |
Orders
Case Summary: FCA 50/2026 The Bombay High Court granted a stay on the Family Court's divorce decree dated 10/4/2026. The husband (appellant) challenged the mutual divorce decree and the Family Court's direction requiring him to execute a relinquishment deed transferring his 50% property share for Rs. 27,50,000, arguing he never consented in writing to these settlement terms. The High Court found merit in his contention, noting the wife's application (Exhibit-31) for conversion to Section 13B divorce was unilateral and his "No Objection" to conversion did not constitute agreement to the property conditions. The matter stands adjourned to 3/7/2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: FCA 50/2026 The Bombay High Court granted a stay on the Family Court's divorce decree dated 10/4/2026. The husband (appellant) challenged the mutual divorce decree and the Family Court's direction requiring him to execute a relinquishment deed transferring his 50% property share for Rs. 27,50,000, arguing he never consented in writing to these settlement terms. The High Court found merit in his contention, noting the wife's application (Exhibit-31) for conversion to Section 13B divorce was unilateral and his "No Objection" to conversion did not constitute agreement to the property conditions. The matter stands adjourned to 3/7/2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts