DATTARAM NAGUEXA CHARI Apeksha Kalokhe vs SNEHA CHARI AND 2 ORS — CRMA/62/2026

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM050019132026

e-Filing Number

07-05-2026

Filing Number

CRMA/505/2026

Filing Date

07-May-2026

Registration No

CRMA/62/2026

Registration Date

08-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

JUDICIAL SECTION

Decision Date

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Rejected

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DATTARAM NAGUEXA CHARI Apeksha Kalokhe

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SNEHA CHARI AND 2 ORS

  2. 2.RAJASHREE CHARI

  3. 3.BHALCHANDRA CHARI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit S. JamsandekarView PDF

    The High Court of Bombay at Goa dismissed the petitioner's application seeking modification of an April 30, 2026 order requiring deposit of Rs. 3,60,000 as interim maintenance. The court rejected the petitioner's claim of financial inability, noting he failed to comply with the deposit requirement despite no stay order and did not seek one. Finding the writ petition was being misused while execution proceedings remained pending before the Trial Court, the court deemed the modification request unjustified and dismissed the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2026

    For Orders - First On Board

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar

  4. 07-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRMA/62/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Bombay at Goa dismissed the petitioner's application seeking modification of an April 30, 2026 order requiring deposit of Rs. 3,60,000 as interim maintenance. The court rejected the petitioner's claim of financial inability, noting he failed to comply with the deposit requirement despite no stay order and did not seek one. Finding the writ petition was being misused while execution proceedings remained pending before the Trial Court, the court deemed the modification request unjustified and dismissed the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case