Ashok Pralhad Dandade vs Lilabai Ashok Dandade Advocate - M.D. Ingole — 37/2022
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 397. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 22nd May 2026.
Cri.Rev.App. - Criminal Revision Application
CNR: MHWS010015962022
Filing Number
751/2022
Filing Date
04-10-2022
Registration No
37/2022
Registration Date
04-10-2022
Court
District and Sessions Court, Washim
Judge
3-District Judge 2 and ASJ, Washim
Decision Date
22nd May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ashok Pralhad Dandade
Adv. BIYANI GAURAV VINODKUMARJI
Respondent(s)
Lilabai Ashok Dandade Advocate - M.D. Ingole
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Judge 2 and ASJ, Washim
Disposed
Order
Order
Order
Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 21-05-2026 | Order |
| 16-05-2026 | Order |
| 14-05-2026 | Order |
| 29-04-2026 | Order |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Ashok Pralhad Dandade v. Lilabai Ashok Dandade (Cri.Rev.Appln. 37/2022) The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition challenging the trial court's order that enhanced monthly maintenance from Rs. 400 to Rs. 4,000. The court upheld the enhancement, finding the petitioner had failed to prove that a 1997 settlement providing agricultural land and Rs. 35,000 deposit constituted permanent alimony, as he produced no documentary evidence of actual income generation or deposit. Given 25 years of inflation and the petitioner's sufficient pension income, the maintenance enhancement was justified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Ashok Pralhad Dandade v. Lilabai Ashok Dandade (Cri.Rev.Appln. 37/2022) The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition challenging the trial court's order that enhanced monthly maintenance from Rs. 400 to Rs. 4,000. The court upheld the enhancement, finding the petitioner had failed to prove that a 1997 settlement providing agricultural land and Rs. 35,000 deposit constituted permanent alimony, as he produced no documentary evidence of actual income generation or deposit. Given 25 years of inflation and the petitioner's sufficient pension income, the maintenance enhancement was justified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts