Bombay High Court

SARASWATIBAI HARISHCHANDRA HALBURGKARversusSURAJ PRATAP JAISWAL

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner, Saraswatibai, filed a contempt petition seeking enforcement of an order dated 20 October 2020 directing the respondent, an education officer, to issue a simple notice for granting her a family pension. The court observed that the petitioner had not taken any steps to circulate the matter after the notice was issued and noted that the pension may already have been granted. It further found that the petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting the petition. Consequently, the court dismissed the contempt petition on the ground of non‑prosecution. The dismissal reflects the court’s view that the petitioner failed to pursue the relief actively.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner’s inaction amounts to contempt of court
Whether the court can dismiss a contempt petition for non‑prosecution

Subjects

contempt of court
family pension
non‑prosecution
procedural default
court order enforcement

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38971-DB

                                                  904 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 353 OF 2020



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          904 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 353 OF 2020

                          Saraswatibai W/o. Harishchandra Halburgkar
                                            VERSUS
                         Suraj Pratap Jaiswal, Education Officer (Primary)
                   __________________________________________________________
                   Adv. Namita T. Sirdeshpande h/f. Adv. S. D. Tambat for the
                   Petitioner
                   Ms. U. S. Bhosale, AGP for State
                   Adv. N. U. Yadaw for Respondent sole
                   __________________________________________________________

                                     CORAM       : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                                   VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
                                     DATE        : AUGUST 20, 2026

                   PER COURT :
                   1)             It appears that after issuance of simple notice to

                   the    respondent     under    order   dated    20.10.2020,     the

                   petitioner has not circulated the matter.

                   2)             The direction appears to be for grant of family

                   pension to the petitioner. However, by passage of time, the

                   family pension may have been granted to the petitioner.

                   Even otherwise, the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting

                   the matter. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is dismissed

                   for non-prosecution.



                   (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)             (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
                             JUDGE                             JUDGE


                   Komal Kamble                                             Page|1 of 1

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…