Sou. Pratibha Chandrakant Barathe vs Chandrakant Ganpat Barathe — 4/2021
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 39,. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 22nd April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHPU100000182021
Next Hearing
22nd April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
4/2021
Filing Date
16-01-2021
Registration No
4/2021
Registration Date
16-01-2021
Court
Civil Court,Pcmc
Judge
1-C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C., P.C.M.C. Akurdi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sou. Pratibha Chandrakant Barathe
Adv. ruikar yogesh sureshchandra
Respondent(s)
Chandrakant Ganpat Barathe
Sou. Seema Balu Salvi
Amit Balu Salvi
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
Hearing History
Judge: 1-C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C., P.C.M.C. Akurdi
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 07-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 26-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 21-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 27-01-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff (wife) sought to restrain defendants No. 2 and 3 from receiving pension and post-retirement benefits of her husband (defendant No. 1), alleging they manipulated his nominee designation due to his mental illness. The court found insufficient prima facie proof of the allegations and held that the husband has the legal right to nominate any person of his choice, rejecting the application without granting the interim relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff (wife) sought to restrain defendants No. 2 and 3 from receiving pension and post-retirement benefits of her husband (defendant No. 1), alleging they manipulated his nominee designation due to his mental illness. The court found insufficient prima facie proof of the allegations and held that the husband has the legal right to nominate any person of his choice, rejecting the application without granting the interim relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts