An application was filed (P. C.) for the defaulting respondent to appear in court. The respondent had already departed India for higher studies, making the order absolute. The High Court held the petition had no merit and disposed of it without further proceedings.
The criminal writ petition was disposed of.
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.
(1)
criwp918.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
909 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.918 OF 2021
JAYMALA D/O. NARAYANRAO DHANKIKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Mr. R. K. Ingole, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. R. B. Bagul, APP for the respondent/State Mr. P. P. Mandlik, Advocate for the respondent No.3
CORAM : SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J. DATE : 03-09-2021
P. C.
. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel the respondents.
1 of 2
(2) criwp918.21
[ SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J. ]
VishalK/criwp918.21
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal writ petition should be continued after the departure of respondent No.3 for higher studies.
JAYMALA D/O. NARAYANRAO DHANKIKAR
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
SURENDRA P. TAVADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
