Ganesh Nandkumar Kirdat vs state of Maharashtra — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

Ganesh Nandkumar Kirdat vs state of Maharashtra — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether any case is made out for review of the order dated 17th October 2025 passed in Writ Petition No.4874 of 2025, the Review Petitioner contending that prayer clause (e) — invoking Union of India v. Haresh V. Milani and seeking a direction that the application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 379 of BNSS) be adjudicated as a threshold issue — had not been considered by the Court. +1 more

Court's answer

The contention based on prayer clause (e) was not raised by Mr. Bhambri, learned counsel, when he argued the Writ Petition; perusal of the order dated 17th October 2025 shows that he raised many other contentions but not this contention.

Ratio / Principle

While deciding Writ Petition No.4874 of 2025, this Court was exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is an equitable jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

This Court dismissed the Writ Petition because no interference in the appellate order (staying the J.M.F.C.'s maintenance order subject to deposit of 50% of arrears) was warranted under the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶25
No case is made out for review of the order dated 17th October, 2025 passed in Writ Petition No.4874 of 2025; accordingly the Review Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition dismissed (no order as to costs) by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Madhav J. Jamdar, J.) on 13th February 2026. The Applicant sought review of the order dated 17th October 2025 in Writ Petition No.4874 of 2025, by which the Court had declined to interfere, in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with the order dated 14th May 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belapur, Navi Mumbai below Exhibit-8 in PWDVA Appeal No.1 of 2025. The appellate order had stayed, subject to payment of 50% of the arrears of maintenance (calculated at Rs. 3,000/- per month), the interim order of the learned J.M.F.C. in PWDVA No.137 of 2023 directing payment of maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the wife. The Applicant contended that prayer clause (e), invoking Union of India v. Haresh V. Milani, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2080, seeking a direction that his application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 379 of BNSS) be adjudicated as a threshold issue, had not been considered. The Court held that this contention was never raised when the Writ Petition was argued, that the Writ Petition involved exercise of equitable Article 227 jurisdiction in which no interference with the conditional stay order was warranted, and that no case for review was made out; the Review Petition was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

910.-REVW-2-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION NO.2 OF 2025 IN

WRIT PETITION NO.4874 OF 2025

Ganesh Nandkumar Kirdat … Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents

Mr. Devkrishna Bhambri, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. R. V. Newton, APP for the Respondent-State.

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 13^th FEBRUARY 2026

P.C.:

Heard Mr. Bhambri, learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner and Ms. Newton, learned APP for the Respondent No.1-State of Maharashtra.

By the present Review Petition, the Review Petitioner, who is the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.4874 of 2025, is seeking review of order dated 17^th October 2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4874 of 2025.

The challenge in the said Writ Petition No.4874 of 2025 is to the order dated 14^th May 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belapur, Navi Mumbai below Exhibit-8 in PWDVA Appeal No.1 of 2025, by which pending the decision of the said appeal, the effect and operation of the interim order passed below Exhibit-5 in PDWVA

1

SUB

910.-REVW-2-2025.doc

No.137 of 2023 has been stayed, subject to payment of 50% of the arrears of maintenance as on date.

It is the submission of Mr. Bhambri, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, that in the Writ Petition the following prayer has been sought, and the same has not been considered by this Court. The prayer clause (e) which reads as under:-

“e. In accordance with the law set by Union of India v. Haresh V. Milani, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2080 It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct Respondent No.1 to first consider and adjudicate upon the application preferred under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 379 of BNSS,), as a threshold issue, before proceeding to entertain or adjudicate any further aspect of the parent matter, in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of law.”

Thus by the said prayer clause (e), a prayer is made to adjudicate application preferred under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

However, the said contention has not been raised by Mr. Bhambri, learned Counsel when he argued the Writ Petition. Perusal of the order dated 17^th October 2025 shows that Mr. Bhambri, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has raised many other contentions but not this contention.

In any case, it is important to note that while deciding Writ Petition No. 4874 of 2025, this Court was exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is an equitable jurisdiction.

By the impugned order in PWDVA Appeal No. 1 of 2025, what was stayed, on conditions, was the order passed below Exhibit-5 in

2

SUB

910.-REVW-2-2025.doc

PWDVA No. 137 of 2023, by which the learned J.M.F.C. directed payment of maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the wife. By the order dated 14^th May 2025 passed in PWDVA Appeal No. 1 of 2025, the said order of the learned J.M.F.C. was stayed subject to deposit of 50% of the arrears of maintenance, i.e., arrears calculated at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month. In view of the same this Court dismissed the Writ Petition as, no interference in the said order was warranted under the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Thus no case is made out for review of the order dated 17^th October, 2025 passed in Writ Petition No.4874 of 2025.

Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

( MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)

3

SUB