Bombay High Court
HEMANT POPAT KALE AND ORSversusPRACHI HEMANT KALE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that there was no case for interference under Article 227 and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 4 April 2026 of the JMFC, Pimpri, which directed the respondents to submit a true asset and liability affidavit in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Rajnesh v. Neha. The trial court had already taken note of two affidavits filed by the respondent in a related criminal matter and held that they would be considered for an interim maintenance application, finding no prejudice to the petitioners. The petitioners' contentions on the matter have not yet been decided by the trial court. The High Court held that there was no ground for exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the lower court's order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the order directing the respondents to file a true asset and liability affidavit is legal and valid.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the petitioners suffer any prejudice due to the filing of the affidavits.
Subjects
- Writ petition
- Article 227
- Asset and Liability Affidavit
- Interim maintenance
- Supreme Court direction
- Criminal appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
52-WP-4417-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4417 OF 2026
Digitally
signed by
ARJUN Hemant Popat Kale & Ors. ...Petitioners
ARJUN VITTHAL
VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Versus
KUDHEKAR Date:
2026.09.19
13:15:08
Prachi Hemant Kale & Ors. ...Respondents
+0530
——————
Mr. Prashant Darandale, for the Petitioners.
Mr. P. P. Jadhav, APP, for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J.
Date: 18 September 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Darandale, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners.
2. In this Writ Petition, the challenge is to the legality and validity of
the Order dated 4th April 2026 passed by the learned JMFC, Pimpri,
Pune, below the application seeking a direction against the
Respondents to submit/produce True Asset And Liability Affidavit along
with all true documents, as per the directions issued by the Supreme
Court in the decision of Rajnesh v. Neha 1.
3. Perusal of the record shows that two Affidavits were filed on
behalf of Respondent No.1, i.e., the Applicant in Criminal M. A. No.1323
of 2022. The learned Trial Court has observed that both these Affidavits
will be taken into consideration at the time of deciding the interim
maintenance application. Thus, there is no prejudice to the Petitioners.
1 (2021) 2 SCC 324
Arjun 1
52-WP-4417-2026.doc
4. The contentions raised by the Petitioners are yet to be considered
and decided by the learned Trial Court.
5. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference in the impugned
Order under extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
6. The Writ Petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs.
[Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]
Arjun 2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.