Vitthalrao Mukundrao Deshpande vs Shailja Vitthalrao Deshpande Advocate - Mande Sujit Vikramaditya — 89/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 448. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 09th April 2026.

Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application

CNR: MHLA010051092025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

18-11-2025

Filing Number

1420/2025

Filing Date

18-11-2025

Registration No

89/2025

Registration Date

19-11-2025

Court

District and Sessions Court , Latur

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge Latur

Decision Date

09th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 448
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Section 12

Petitioner(s)

Vitthalrao Mukundrao Deshpande

Adv. Badde Nagnath B

Respondent(s)

Shailja Vitthalrao Deshpande Advocate - Mande Sujit Vikramaditya

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge Latur

09-04-2026

Disposed

08-04-2026

Order

23-03-2026

Arguments

13-03-2026

Arguments

02-03-2026

Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

Final Orders / Judgements

09-04-2026
Order on Exhibit

The Sessions Court rejected Vitthalrao's application to transfer a Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act case from the 6th JMFC Latur, finding no credible evidence of judicial bias. The court held that an unfavorable order alone does not establish bias, and transfer powers must be exercised sparingly only in exceptional circumstances where fair justice is genuinely imperiled. The applicant failed to demonstrate concrete material supporting his apprehension and was ordered to pay ₹10,000 as exemplary costs for filing a frivolous and vexatious application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Court rejected Vitthalrao's application to transfer a Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act case from the 6th JMFC Latur, finding no credible evidence of judicial bias. The court held that an unfavorable order alone does not establish bias, and transfer powers must be exercised sparingly only in exceptional circumstances where fair justice is genuinely imperiled. The applicant failed to demonstrate concrete material supporting his apprehension and was ordered to pay ₹10,000 as exemplary costs for filing a frivolous and vexatious application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Sessions Court , Latur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case