Disposed¶3

Hero Devi and v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Feb 2026WP/617/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Child Welfare Committee Thane; non-decision on application dated 17.11.2025 (Exhibit-B, p.53); absence of endorsement of receipt; writ direction for personal hearing on 13.03.2026 without counsel or representative; Committee to pass orders in accordance with law; Criminal Writ Petition No. 617 of 2026; Bombay High Court; Shree Chandrashekhar CJ and Gautam Ankhad J; decided 24.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent-Child Welfare Committee to provide the petitioner an opportunity of hearing on 13th March 2026, the petitioner not to be accompanied by her counsel or any representative, and to pass necessary orders in accordance with law thereafter; writ petition disposed of with these directions. ¶3

Hero Devi and vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶3

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ direction should issue to the 2nd respondent-Child Welfare Committee to grant the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and decide her application dated 17th November 2025 pending before it. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

The Court directed the Committee to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 13th March 2026.

¶2

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner shall not be accompanied by her counsel or any representative at the time of the hearing before the Committee.

¶2

Key takeaways

After hearing the petitioner, the Committee shall pass necessary orders in accordance with law.ratio¶2
The Court noted the absence of endorsement and other defects and inconsistencies in the application but chose to ignore them and proceed to issue the hearing directions; it made no finding on due receipt of the application.¶2

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction — Criminal Writ Petition No. 617 of 2026, Hero Devi v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Coram: Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ & Gautam Ankhad, J.; decided 24 February 2026). The petitioner, an 81-year-old housewife, complained that the 2nd respondent-Child Welfare Committee had taken no decision on her application dated 17 November 2025 (annexed as Exhibit-B, page no.53 of the paper book), and alleged the Committee puts no stamp endorsement evidencing receipt. Noting that there was not even an endorsement on behalf of the Committee and that the application bore only a thumb impression and was in English, the Court nevertheless ignored these defects and inconsistencies and directed the Committee to provide the petitioner an opportunity of hearing on 13 March 2026 — unaccompanied by her counsel or any representative — and to pass necessary orders in accordance with law after hearing her. Writ Petition disposed of accordingly. No statute or precedent was cited; no impugned order was under challenge, the grievance being non-disposal of the pending application.

¶1

917.617.26-wp.docx

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.617 OF 2026

¶4

Digitally signed by BASAVRAJ BASAVRAJ GURAPPA GURAPPA PATIL PATIL Date: 2026.03.04 13:58:37 +0530

Hero Devi

.. Petitioner

Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶9

...

¶10

Ms. Jahanara Khan, Advocate for the Petitioner

¶11

Mr. S. V. Gavand, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos.1 to 5

¶12

Ms. Rani Jaiprakash Baisane, CWC, ThaneChairperson.

¶13

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ & GAUTAM ANKHAD, J.

¶14

DATE : 24^th FEBRUARY 2026

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

Pursuant to the order dated 12^th February 2026, 2^nd respondent-Child Welfare Committee (in short, the Committee) has been served.

¶17

Ms. Jahanara Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner makes an allegation that no decision has been taken on the application filed on 17^th November 2025 before the Committee a copy of which has been annexed vide Exhibit-B, page no.53 of the paper book. The labelling of the Court/Forum at page no.53 is not correct. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that this application vide Exhibit-B was filed with the Committee. There is not even an endorsement on behalf of the Committee. But here again, the learned counsel for the petitioner makes an unsubstantiated allegation that the Committee does not put an endorsement through stamp as an evidence of receipt. We further find that this application

bgp

Page | 1

917.617.26-wp.docx

has been projected to have been filed on behalf of the petitioner who is a housewife aged about 81 years. On the alleged application, she has put her thumb impression. Just to indicate, this application has been made in English language. However, ignoring all these defects and inconsistencies, we issue direction to the Committee to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 13^th March 2026 but the petitioner shall not be accompanied by her counsel or any representative at the time of hearing. After hearing the petitioner, the Committee shall pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 3. Writ Petition No.617 of 2026 is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶22

[GAUTAM ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶23

bgp

¶24

Page | 2

Hero Devi and v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hero Devi and v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shaikh Mohd Salim Mohd Siddique vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Garware Technical Fibres Limited Thr Its Authorized Signatory and Anr. vs City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunil Kumar Agrawal vs Cidco Thr Its Managing Director and Ors.

Adon Agro Commodities Limited, a Public Limited Company vs State of Maharashtra Amd Anr.

Trishta Bharat Vardhan and Anr. vs Champalal K. Vardhan and 35 Ors.

M/S Artworld Desingers Thro. Its Proprietor Ramesh L. Thombre vs the State of Maharashtra Thro. Its Chief Secretary