swapnil Shamrao Pophale vs Shamrao Vaman Pophale — 58/2022

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section (). Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 06th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.Rev.App. - Criminal Revision Application

CNR: MHST010021242022

Filing Number

1010/2022

Filing Date

04-Apr-2022

Registration No

58/2022

Registration Date

01-Aug-2022

Court

District and Sessions Court , Satara

Judge

6-District Judge-1 Satara

Decision Date

06-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 25-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section ()

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.swapnil Shamrao Pophale

    Adv. Shevade Chaitanya Laxman

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Shamrao Vaman Pophale

  2. 2.Maharashtra State

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the criminal revision application filed by the sons against an interim maintenance order. The court found that the original magistrate's order granting meager maintenance to their elderly father was justified, and notably, the father had already received Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 3,000 in compliance, rendering the revision application infructuous. The court confirmed the original order without interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge-1 Satara

  4. 16-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge-4 Satara

  5. 24-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge-4 Satara

  6. 31-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge-4 Satara

  7. 16-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge-4 Satara

  8. 06-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge-4 Satara

  9. 30-Apr-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge-4 Satara

  10. 03-Mar-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge-3 Satara

  11. 09-Jan-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge-3 Satara

  12. 07-Nov-2024

    Arguments

    District Judge-3 Satara

  13. 26-Sep-2024

    Arguments

    District Judge-3 Satara

  14. 01-Aug-2024

    Arguments

    District Judge-3 Satara

  15. 20-Jun-2024

    Arguments

    District Judge-3 Satara

  16. 11-Jun-2024

    Arguments

    District Judge-3 Satara

  17. 19-Apr-2024

    Arguments

    District Judge-2 Satara.

  18. 05-Mar-2024

    Arguments

    District Judge-2 Satara.

  19. 23-Jan-2024

    Arguments

    District Judge-3 Satara

  20. 22-Dec-2023

    Arguments

    District Judge-3 Satara

  21. 27-Nov-2023

    Arguments

    District Judge-4 Satara

  22. 23-Nov-2023

    Arguments

    District Judge-4 Satara

  23. 09-Oct-2023

    Arguments

    District Judge-4 Satara

  24. 04-Sep-2023

    Arguments

    District Judge-4 Satara

  25. 07-Aug-2023

    Arguments

    District Judge-4 Satara

  26. 21-Jun-2023

    Arguments

    District Judge-5 Satara.

  27. 22-May-2023

    Arguments

    District Judge-6 Satara.

  28. 11-May-2023

    Arguments

    District Judge-6 Satara.

  29. 06-May-2023

    Arguments

    District Judge-6 Satara.

  30. 27-Apr-2023

    Arguments

    District Judge-6 Satara.

  31. 19-Apr-2023

    Arguments

    District Judge-6 Satara.

  32. 17-Apr-2023

    Arguments

    District Judge-5 Satara.

  33. 09-Feb-2023

    Arguments

    District Judge-4 Satara

  34. 10-Jan-2023

    Arguments

    District Judge-4 Satara

  35. 06-Dec-2022

    Arguments

    District Judge-4 Satara

  36. 03-Nov-2022

    Arguments

    District Judge-4 Satara

  37. 11-Oct-2022

    Arguments

    District Judge-4 Satara

  38. 04-Oct-2022

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    District Judge-4 Satara

  39. 27-Sep-2022

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    District Judge-4 Satara

  40. 06-Sep-2022

    Awaiting Notice

    District Judge-4 Satara

  41. 03-Sep-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  42. 04-Apr-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 58/2022

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the criminal revision application filed by the sons against an interim maintenance order. The court found that the original magistrate's order granting meager maintenance to their elderly father was justified, and notably, the father had already received Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 3,000 in compliance, rendering the revision application infructuous. The court confirmed the original order without interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case