Disposed¶20

Xyz v. The state of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Sept 2025APPLN/83/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cri. Appln. No.83 of 2025; XYZ v. State of Maharashtra; Bombay High Court; Milind N. Jadhav J.; 08-05-2025; interim procedural order; affidavit-in-reply; two weeks' time granted; quashing petition (st) No.7851 of 2025; Division Bench; husband-wife dispute; stand over 15-07-2025; liberty to move Vacation Court; Kandivali Police Station; GG Legal Associate; APP Savita M. Yadav.

What did the court decide?

Interim directions only: two weeks' time granted to Respondent No.2 to file Affidavit-in-Reply with advance copies to the Applicant's Advocate and the prosecution; matter stood over to 15th July, 2025; Applicant at liberty to move the Vacation Court with advance notice to the Respondents. No final disposal; application remains pending. ¶20

Xyz vs The state of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Ratio / Principle

At the request of the learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, time is granted to file an Affidavit-in-Reply within a period of 2 weeks from the date of the order, with an advance copy duly served on the learned Advocate for the Applicant and on the prosecution.

¶20

Key takeaways

The matter is stood over to 15th July, 2025.ratio¶21
The Applicant is at liberty to move the Vacation Court, if so desired, with advance notice to the Respondents.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction - Criminal Application No.83 of 2025, XYZ v. The State of Maharashtra (Milind N. Jadhav, J.; order dated May 08, 2025). Purely interim and procedural order. Counsel for Respondent No.2 (the wife) sought leave to file an Affidavit-in-Reply to the Application, submitting that a quashing petition bearing (st) No.7851 of 2025 filed by her before the Division Bench of this Court had been on board for two days without reaching, that there is a dispute between the husband and wife, and that while the legal position prima facie stated in the previous order appeared to him to be correct, he needed to explain it to his client and take instructions. The Court granted two weeks' time to file the Affidavit-in-Reply with advance copies to the Applicant's Advocate and the prosecution, stood the matter over to 15th July, 2025, and left the Applicant at liberty to move the Vacation Court with advance notice to the Respondents. No statute or precedent is cited; no substantive issue is framed or decided; counsel's concession regarding the previous order is recorded as background, not as a holding of this Court.

¶1

905_APPLN_83_2025.docx

¶2

Prasad Rajput

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.83 OF 2025

¶6

XYZ .. Applicant

¶7

Versus The State Of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶8

Mr. Ganesh Gupta a/w Mr. Sahil Ghorpade, Mr. Surya Prakash Gupta, Mr. Madan Khansole and Ms. Priyanka Rathod i/by GG Legal Associate, Advocate for Applicant.

¶9

Mr. Abhishek Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶10

Ms. Savita M. Yadav, APP for State.

¶11

PSI – Ravindra Chavan, Kandivali Police Station, present.

¶12

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : MAY 08, 2025

¶13

P. C.:

¶14

1. Heard Mr. Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr.

¶15

Kulkarni, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Ms. Yadav, learned APP for State.

¶16

2. Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 would persuade the Court to allow him to file Affidavit-in-reply to the present Application. He would make submission across the bar, inter alia, that Quashing petition bearing (st) No.7851 of 2025 is filed by his client-wife before the Division Bench of this Court which was on board for two days but it could not reach.

¶17

1 of 2

¶18

905_APPLN_83_2025.docx

¶19

2.1. That apart he would submit that there is a dispute between the husband and wife. However, in all fairness he would submit that insofar as the legal position that has been prima facie stated in the previous order, it appears to be correct but he needs to explain the same to his client who is the wife in the present case and accordingly take instructions to file the reply.

¶20

2.2. At the request made by learned Advocate for Respondnet No.2 time is granted to file Affidavit-in-Reply within a period of 2 weeks from today with an advance copy duly served on the learned Advocate for Applicant as also the prosecution.

¶21

3. Stand over to 15^th July, 2025 .

¶22

4. Applicant is at liberty to move the Vacation Court, if so

¶23

desired, with advance notice to the Respondents.

¶24

P.R. Rajput

¶25

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶26

2 of 2