Rural Development Officer and Child Marriage Prevention Officer Shri Dipak Pradip Patil vs Smt Sita Amol Bhadale and others — 68/2026

Case under Prohibition of Child Marriage Act Section 13. Disposed: Contested--DECIDED on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application

CNR: MHKO050010962026

e-Filing Number

07-03-2026

Filing Number

817/2026

Filing Date

07-Mar-2026

Registration No

68/2026

Registration Date

10-Mar-2026

Court

Civil Court Senior Division , Ichalkaranji

Judge

7-4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DECIDED

Last updated 11-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Prohibition of Child Marriage Act Section 13

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rural Development Officer and Child Marriage Prevention Officer Shri Dipak Pradip Patil

    Adv. Adv.Kiran Ramchandra Khatavkar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Smt Sita Amol Bhadale and others

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Summary The court granted a prohibiting injunction under Section 13 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, restraining the respondents from solemnizing the marriage of 15-year-old Sneha Amol Bhadale until she completes 18 years of age. The court found that the child's marriage was being arranged in violation of the Act, and despite the respondents filing an undertaking not to proceed with the marriage, the injunction was necessary to protect the child's welfare and rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    4th Jt. Civil Judge Jr.Dn. Ichalkaranji

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 68/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court granted a prohibiting injunction under Section 13 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, restraining the respondents from solemnizing the marriage of 15-year-old Sneha Amol Bhadale until she completes 18 years of age. The court found that the child's marriage was being arranged in violation of the Act, and despite the respondents filing an undertaking not to proceed with the marriage, the injunction was necessary to protect the child's welfare and rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case