HARISH @ ROSHAN S/O BHASKAR KARNEWAR vs LEELAVATI @ REENA W/O ROSHAN KARNEWAR AND ANOTHER Advocate - JYOTI D. DHARMADHIKARI, ,RAHUL DEEPAK DHARMADHIKARI,SHRIRAM SATISH CHOPDE,INDERDEEP SINGH KALSI,SAKSHI A. PATHAK — REVN/113/2024

Case under Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.pc) Section 125. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM040197632024

e-Filing Number

22-07-2024

Filing Number

REVN/5830/2024

Filing Date

22-Jul-2024

Registration No

REVN/113/2024

Registration Date

23-Jul-2024

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke

Bench Type

Single

Category

CRIMINAL ( 9 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Decision Date

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.pc) Section 125

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HARISH @ ROSHAN S/O BHASKAR KARNEWAR

    Adv. VISHWADEEP N. MATE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.LEELAVATI @ REENA W/O ROSHAN KARNEWAR AND ANOTHER Advocate - JYOTI D. DHARMADHIKARI, ,RAHUL DEEPAK DHARMADHIKARI,SHRIRAM SATISH CHOPDE,INDERDEEP SINGH KALSI,SAKSHI A. PATHAK

  2. 2.KU. CHETNA D/O HARISH KARNEWAR THR. HER NATURAL GUARDIAN.MOTHER I.E. NON APPLICANT NO. 1

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi PhalkeView PDF

    Case Summary: REVN/113/2024 Court Decision: The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench partially allowed the revision application, modifying the Family Court's maintenance order. The court upheld the wife's entitlement to maintenance while adjusting amounts for subsequent periods. Key Reasoning: The court found the husband committed "refusal and neglect" by filing for divorce without attempting reconciliation and refusing to accept the wife when she attempted to rejoin him after a restitution decree. Despite the wife's post-graduation education, her unemployment and the husband's sufficient income (Rs.85,000/month as Loco Pilot) satisfied Section 125 CrPC requirements. The court ordered maintenance of Rs.10,000-12,000/month for the wife and Rs.5,000-7,000/month for the daughter (adjusted from January 2021), plus Rs.20,000 litigation costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Apr-2026

    For Admission At 10.30 A.M. (Criminal Side Matters)

    Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    For Admission - After Notice (Revn)

    Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi PhalkeView PDF

  6. 06-Mar-2026

    For Admission - After Notice (Revn)

    Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke

  7. 13-Feb-2025

    Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi PhalkeView PDF

  8. 13-Feb-2025

    For Admission - After Notice (Revn)

    Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke

  9. 16-Jan-2025

    Hon'ble Justice Urmila Joshi PhalkeView PDF

  10. 16-Jan-2025

    For Admission - After Notice (Revn)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More

  11. 19-Dec-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar Chandrabhan MoreView PDF

  12. 18-Dec-2024

    For Admission - After Notice (Revn)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More

  13. 04-Dec-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar Chandrabhan MoreView PDF

  14. 15-Oct-2024

    For Admission - After Notice (Revn)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice G. A. Sanap

  15. 24-Sep-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice G. A. SanapView PDF

  16. 24-Sep-2024

    For Admission - After Notice (Revn)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice G. A. Sanap

  17. 26-Aug-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice G. A. SanapView PDF

  18. 26-Aug-2024

    For Admission - Fresh (Revn)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice G. A. Sanap

  19. 05-Aug-2024

    Hon'ble Shri Justice G. A. SanapView PDF

  20. 05-Aug-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  21. 22-Jul-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. REVN/113/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: REVN/113/2024 Court Decision: The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench partially allowed the revision application, modifying the Family Court's maintenance order. The court upheld the wife's entitlement to maintenance while adjusting amounts for subsequent periods. Key Reasoning: The court found the husband committed "refusal and neglect" by filing for divorce without attempting reconciliation and refusing to accept the wife when she attempted to rejoin him after a restitution decree. Despite the wife's post-graduation education, her unemployment and the husband's sufficient income (Rs.85,000/month as Loco Pilot) satisfied Section 125 CrPC requirements. The court ordered maintenance of Rs.10,000-12,000/month for the wife and Rs.5,000-7,000/month for the daughter (adjusted from January 2021), plus Rs.20,000 litigation costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case