Disposed¶6

Ashruba Tatyaba Borgaonkar v. Subhadra W/O Ashruba Borgaonkar

Bombay HC9 Dec 2025APPLN/1397/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Infructuous disposal of quashing application under Domestic Violence Act; cause of action does not survive; impugned DV proceedings already decided by JMFC Court No.3 Aurangabad on 29.8.2023 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 4640 of 2021; execution proceeding with Rs. 6,000/- pension deduction order dated 3.2.2025; applicant's counsel absent on multiple dates; legal aid appointed counsel fees Rs. 10,000/-; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; Criminal Application No. 1397 of 2022; Mehroz K. Pathan, J.; decision dated 9 December 2025.

What did the court decide?

The present criminal application is disposed of as infructuous, since the impugned proceedings were decided long back in 2023 and the cause of action for filing the application does not survive. ¶5

Ashruba Tatyaba Borgaonkar Vs Subhadra W/O Ashruba Borgaonkar — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:34657

¶2

{1}

¶3

901 sr.no..odt

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 901 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1397 OF 2022

¶5

Ashruba Tatyaba Borgaonkar

¶6

….Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Subhadra W/o Ashruba Borgaonkar

¶9

…..Respondent

¶10

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Thorat Nanabhau R (Absent) Advocate for Respondent : Adv. Hanumant P. Jadhav For R/1 (through Legal Aid)

¶11

CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 9TH DECEMBER, 2025.

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

The applicant has approached this Court seeking quashment of proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act filed by the sole respondent wife on various grounds.

¶14

The matter is pending hearing since 2022. The order sheet shows that the learned counsel for the applicant has remained absent on several dates and despite the indulgence shown by this Court, the counsel for the applicant has failed to work out the matter.

¶15

It is informed by the learned appointed counsel for the respondent that the proceedings which are under challenged has itself been disposed by the learned JMFC, Court No.3, Aurangabad in Criminal Misc. Application NO. 4640 of 2021. The matter was listed yesterday on board i.e 8/12/2025, however, the counsel for the applicant has failed to appear. The appointed counsel for the respondent was directed to inform the counsel appearing for the applicant that the matter would be taken up for final disposal today i.e on 9/12/2025. Today, when the matter is called out, the learned appointed counsel for respondent No.2 informs

¶16

{2}

¶17

901 sr.no..odt

¶18

that he has already intimated Shri Thorat, Advocate for Applicant, about the matter being listed today for final disposal. However, again, the counsel for the applicant has chosen not to remain present.

¶19

It is informed that the proceeding which are under challenge in the present application, had itself been decided by the order dated 29.8.2023 passed by the learned JMFC, Court No.3, Aurangabad, and that the Execution Proceeding was also filed by the respondent wife, wherein, the learned 3^rd JMFC,Aurangabad vide order dated 3.2.2025 has already directed deduction of Rs. 6,000/- from the Pension Account of the present applicant – Ashruba Tatyaba Borgaonkar, through communication issued by the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Draupadi Ghat, Prayag Raj and the same shall be deposited in the account of the respondent - Subhadra Ashruba Borgaonkar maintained in the State Bank of India, Chawni Branch, Aurangabad. A copy of the affidavit along with order dated 29.8.2023 is taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification.

¶20

Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid fact that the proceeding itself has been decided long back in the year 2023 and that the applicant has chosen not to remain present, the present criminal application is disposed of as infructuous as the cause of action for filing of the present application does not survive.

¶21

Application stands disposed of accordingly. Fees of the appointed counsel shall be quantified at Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.

¶22

[MEHROZ K. PATHAN] JUDGE.

¶23

grt/-

Ashruba Tatyaba Borgaonkar v. Subhadra W/O Ashruba Borgaonkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashruba Tatyaba Borgaonkar v. Subhadra W/O Ashruba Borgaonkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shekh Saddam Taher Shekh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Amol Raju Shirsath and Others Vs Snehal Amol Shirsat

Sachin Baburao Borde (Borade in Fir) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kailas Shivajirao Ghare vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dinesh Dnyaneshwar Berad vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Digambar Gangaram Kurewad vs the State of Maharashtra and Another