Savita Bhatu Deore vs Bhatu Prabhakar Deore Advocate - Khairnar Vanita A. — 46/2025

Case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Section 12, 17,18,19,20,22. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 09th March 2026.

Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application

CNR: MHDH050003042025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

07-02-2025

Filing Number

238/2025

Filing Date

10-02-2025

Registration No

46/2025

Registration Date

10-02-2025

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Sakri

Judge

13-Jt Civil Judge JD and JMFC Sakri

Decision Date

09th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Section 12, 17,18,19,20,22

Petitioner(s)

Savita Bhatu Deore

Adv. Kakuste Punam S.

Arti Bhatu Deore

Adv. KAKUSTE POONAM SAHEBRAO

Rushi Bhatu Deore

Adv. KAKUSTE POONAM SAHEBRAO

Respondent(s)

Bhatu Prabhakar Deore Advocate - Khairnar Vanita A.

Hira Prabhakara Deore

Adv. Khairnar Vanita A.

Prabhakar Vankar Deore

Adv. Khairnar Vanita A.

Yogesh Prabhakar Deore

Adv. Khairnar Vanita A.

Yogita Yogesh Deore

Adv. Khairnar Vanita A.

Sadhana Bhaiyya Patil

Hearing History

Judge: 13-Jt Civil Judge JD and JMFC Sakri

09-03-2026

Disposed

17-02-2026

Dismissal Order

13-01-2026

Dismissal Order

12-12-2025

Steps_Unready

08-12-2025

Steps_Unready

Final Orders / Judgements

09-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

The Judicial Magistrate First Class at Sakri dismissed the criminal miscellaneous application filed by Savita Deore against Bhatu Deore in default for lack of steps. The court found that the applicant was repeatedly absent without filing any adjournment application and had failed to take effective steps despite a prior warning order, demonstrating lack of interest in pursuing the matter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Judicial Magistrate First Class at Sakri dismissed the criminal miscellaneous application filed by Savita Deore against Bhatu Deore in default for lack of steps. The court found that the applicant was repeatedly absent without filing any adjournment application and had failed to take effective steps despite a prior warning order, demonstrating lack of interest in pursuing the matter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Sakri All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case