KUHELI DAS SUSNIGDHO BHATTACHARYYA vs SUMAN ROY — CRR/2153/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 529/144. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 12th June 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 22-May-2026

CNR: WBCHCA0227972026

Filing Number

CRR/2135/2026

Filing Date

20-May-2026

Registration No

CRR/2153/2026

Registration Date

20-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee

Coram

Hon'ble Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP C (CRIMINAL MATTERS) ( 3 )

Sub-Category

Exercise of inherent power u/s 482 Cr. P. C. ( 40 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL SECTION

Decision Date

12-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 13-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 529/144

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KUHELI DAS SUSNIGDHO BHATTACHARYYA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SUMAN ROY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar MukherjeeView PDF

    The court allowed Kuheli Das's petition challenging delay in her maintenance case (M-172/2024) filed under Section 144 BNSS in July 2024. The court directed the lower court to dispose of her interim maintenance application within 30 days and thereafter expedite the main proceeding without unnecessary adjournments, recognizing the two-year pendency was unjustified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Jun-2026

    Expeditious Disposal Matters

    Hon'ble Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee

  4. 22-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 20-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRR/2153/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court allowed Kuheli Das's petition challenging delay in her maintenance case (M-172/2024) filed under Section 144 BNSS in July 2024. The court directed the lower court to dispose of her interim maintenance application within 30 days and thereafter expedite the main proceeding without unnecessary adjournments, recognizing the two-year pendency was unjustified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case