VITTHAL TUKARAM KAPSE vs GEETA VITTHAL KAPSE AND OTHERS — WP/802/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 227. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM030219632026

e-Filing Number

07-06-2026

Filing Number

WP/5970/2026

Filing Date

10-Jun-2026

Registration No

WP/802/2026

Registration Date

10-Jun-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Joshi

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Joshi

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Decision Date

17-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VITTHAL TUKARAM KAPSE

    Adv. M L Dharashive

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GEETA VITTHAL KAPSE AND OTHERS

  2. 2.Tukaram Vitthal Kapse

  3. 3.Varsha Vitthal Kapse

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. JoshiView PDF

    The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed Vitthal Tukaram Kapse's writ petition challenging a January 2023 order that allowed condonation of delay in a maintenance case with a condition to deposit 25% of maintenance within 20 days. The court rejected the petition filed three years after the impugned order, finding unreasonable delay without cogent reasons and noting the petitioner's poor conduct—specifically, the absence of any evidence that court-ordered maintenance payments were made to his wife. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Jun-2026

    For Admission - Fresh - Criminal Side Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. M. Joshi

  4. 10-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/802/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed Vitthal Tukaram Kapse's writ petition challenging a January 2023 order that allowed condonation of delay in a maintenance case with a condition to deposit 25% of maintenance within 20 days. The court rejected the petition filed three years after the impugned order, finding unreasonable delay without cogent reasons and noting the petitioner's poor conduct—specifically, the absence of any evidence that court-ordered maintenance payments were made to his wife. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case