Sampat Tukaram Jadhav and ors v. The State of Maharashtra and ors
REVN/272/2026 · 2026-10-15
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 19672 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 19672 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
5.cr.revn.272.2026@.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.272 OF 2026 Sampat Tukaram Jadhav and ors … Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. … Respondents *** Mr. Shrirang Katneshwarkar for Applicant M. Balraj Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State. Mr. Tejas D. Kothlikar for Respondent No.2. ***
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 15 OCTOBER, 2026 P.C. :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The Revision Applicants are the sons of Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are old parents. By the impugned order dated 09.03.2026, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Pune in Petition ‘E’ No.59 of 2025, application of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Ssanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking maintenance was allowed, directing the Applicants to pay Rs.5000/- per month to each parent from the date of filing of Petition till further orders.
3. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 appeared through advocate and sought time to file an Affidavit.
4. Today, learned advocate for Respondent nos.2 and 3 has tendered a Consent Affidavit affirmed on 13.10.2026 signed by Vina Khadpe 1 VINA ARVIND KHADPE Digitally signed by VINA ARVIND KHADPE Date: 2026.10.15 17:34:07 +0530
5.cr.revn.272.2026@.doc Respondent Nos.2 and 3 duly identified by their Advocate. The same is taken on record.
5. It is stated in the said Affidavit that during pendency of the Revision Application, with the intervention of the family members, ongoing disputes are amicably resolved. It is also stated that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 no longer desire to enforce the maintenance
order and have consented to quashing/setting aside the same. It is further stated that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, during the pendency of the present Revision application, have started residing with Applicant No.1.
6. Considering the said statements made by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on oath, the Criminal Revision Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.03.2026 is quashed and set aside.
7. The Criminal Revision Application is disposed of in the above terms.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.) Vina Khadpe 2