Writ petition challenging an interim maintenance order was disposed of as infructuous because the main maintenance application had already been disposed of in main proceedings.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
sjs1/126-WP-4218.2009
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE – CIVIL
WRIT PETITION NO.4218 OF 2009
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or Judge's Orders order or Directions and Registrar's Orders
Ms Leena Patil h/f Mr. M.S. Karnik for the Petitioner. Mr. A.K. Patil for the Respondent.
CORAM: P.D. KODE, J.
DATED : DECEMBER 11, 2014
Learned counsel for the respondent states that challenge in this petition to the interim order of maintenance passed by trial Court does not survive in view of the main proceedings for application for maintenance having been disposed of. In view of the statement made, this writ petition is disposed of as infructuous.
Learned counsel for the petitioner claims ignorance for want of instruction. The petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps in event of the statement made being found to be untrue.
Ms Leena Patil (h/f Mr. M.S. Karnik)
Mr. A.K. Patil
P.D. KODE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court