SHAIKH AFSAR SHAIKH AKBAR vs AYESHA PARVIN ABDUL GAFUR @ AAYESHA PARVIN SHAIKH AFSAR AND OTHERS. — REVN/100/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 439. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.

Next hearing 09-Jun-2026

CNR: HCBM040090292026

e-Filing Number

11-03-2026

Filing Number

REVN/2809/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

REVN/100/2026

Registration Date

27-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Nerlikar

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. Nerlikar

Bench Type

Single

Category

CRIMINAL ( 9 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 439

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHAIKH AFSAR SHAIKH AKBAR

    Adv. MEERA PRADEEP KSHIRSAGAR, ,GAURAV O. GADGE,TEJASWINI G. AGLAVE,CHECHENATH PAWAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AYESHA PARVIN ABDUL GAFUR @ AAYESHA PARVIN SHAIKH AFSAR AND OTHERS.

  2. 2.ALBASA SHAIKH AFSAR

  3. 3.MOHAMMAD ANAS SHAIKH AFSAR

Case History

  1. 09-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 09-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. M. NerlikarView PDF

    Case Summary: REVN/100/2026 Outcome: Petition Dismissed Shaikh Afsar (husband) challenged the Family Court's maintenance order of Rs. 4,000 per month each for his two minor children (ages 10 and 7). The High Court dismissed his revision, holding that fathers cannot shirk child maintenance obligations citing unemployment. The court upheld the Family Court's judgment, finding the maintenance amount reasonable and rejecting the applicant's claims of financial hardship, particularly since he had agreed to Rs. 3,000 maintenance under the Khulanama but paid nothing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    —

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. REVN/100/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: REVN/100/2026 Outcome: Petition Dismissed Shaikh Afsar (husband) challenged the Family Court's maintenance order of Rs. 4,000 per month each for his two minor children (ages 10 and 7). The High Court dismissed his revision, holding that fathers cannot shirk child maintenance obligations citing unemployment. The court upheld the Family Court's judgment, finding the maintenance amount reasonable and rejecting the applicant's claims of financial hardship, particularly since he had agreed to Rs. 3,000 maintenance under the Khulanama but paid nothing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case