rajashri kathale vs babasaheb kathale — 37/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure. Status: W.S. and Say. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.
Reg Dkst - Regular Execution Petition
CNR: MHSO120004352016
Next Hearing
19th June 2026
Filing Number
425/2016
Filing Date
14-07-2016
Registration No
37/2016
Registration Date
19-07-2016
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Barshi
Judge
4-Jt.C.J.S.D Barshi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
rajashri kathale
Adv. Bugade Ramesh M
renuka kathale
Adv. Bugade Ramesh M
Respondent(s)
babasaheb kathale
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Jt.C.J.S.D Barshi
W.S. and Say
Steps
Steps
Steps
Steps
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | W.S. and Say |
| 27-03-2026 | Steps |
| 13-03-2026 | Steps |
| 20-02-2026 | Steps |
| 27-01-2026 | Steps |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: R.D. No. 37/2016 (Rajashri Kathale & Ors. v. Babasaheb Kathale) The application filed by the petitioner (D.H.) seeking recovery of maintenance arrears was dismissed. The court found that the respondent (J.D.) had cleared all arrears of maintenance totaling Rs. 6,50,057 through regular payments made during the proceedings. The petitioner's prayer for arrears recovery therefore did not survive. Regarding the contention about incorrect court record entries in the "C" and "D" registers, the court ruled this was an administrative matter outside the petitioner's authority to seek relief; however, as a courtesy, directions were issued to the court's Assistant Superintendent to verify and correct any errors. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: R.D. No. 37/2016 (Rajashri Kathale & Ors. v. Babasaheb Kathale) The application filed by the petitioner (D.H.) seeking recovery of maintenance arrears was dismissed. The court found that the respondent (J.D.) had cleared all arrears of maintenance totaling Rs. 6,50,057 through regular payments made during the proceedings. The petitioner's prayer for arrears recovery therefore did not survive. Regarding the contention about incorrect court record entries in the "C" and "D" registers, the court ruled this was an administrative matter outside the petitioner's authority to seek relief; however, as a courtesy, directions were issued to the court's Assistant Superintendent to verify and correct any errors. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts