Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 29 - July 05, 2026

Citations: [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 300 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 309]

Nominal Index

Swati Raosaheb More vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 300

ANG vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 301

Yogesh Shantinath Ghaste vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 302

SSD vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 303

Kirtesh Vikas Chaudhari vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 304

Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 305

Arti Varun Kejriwal vs Vandana Vinay Awatramani, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 306

Shashikant M Ramane vs Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, SRA/MHADA, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 307

Elite Diagnostic Center Pvt. Ltd. vs Krishna Kunj Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 307

Pune Housing And Area Development Board vs Vithal Shripati Ladkat, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 309

Final Orders/Judgments:

Woman Demanding 'Alimony' From Second Husband Despite Subsistence Of First Marriage Can Be Booked For 'Extortion': Bombay High Court

Case Title: Swati Raosaheb More vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 300

The Bombay High Court has refused to quash an extortion FIR lodged against a Pune-based woman who entered into a second marriage while her first marriage was subsisting, and demanded alimony from the second husband by misusing the law. Single-judge Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale in an order pronounced on June 10, noted that the Petitioner performed her second marriage in September 2015 when her first marriage continued to subsist.

Husband Chatting With Sister-In-Law, Engraving Her Son's Name On His Hand Is Not 'Cruelty' Without Requisite Intent: Bombay High Court

Case Title: ANG vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 301

The act of a husband chatting or speaking to his sister-in-law (bhabhi) and engraving her son's name on his own hand cannot be brought under the ambit of section 498A IPC which penalises cruelty towards a spouse, held the Bombay High Court. It quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a man's sister-in-law, with whom, his wife alleged he had an 'extra-marital' affair.

Is Arrest Illegal If Person Isn't Supplied Earlier Charge Sheet Filed Against Co-Accused? Bombay High Court Answers

Case Title: Yogesh Shantinath Ghaste vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 302

The Bombay High Court recently held that the arrest of a person after the filing of chargesheet against already arrested co-accused is not illegal merely because the arrested person was not provided with a copy of the chargesheet along with the grounds of arrest.

Woman Can't Invoke S.498A IPC Against Family Of Second Husband If First Marriage Subsists: Bombay High Court

Case Title: SSD vs State of Maharashtra 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 303

A First Information Report (FIR) under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the family members of a woman's second husband cannot be sustained in law, if her first marriage subsists, held the Bombay High Court recently while quashing a criminal case lodged against the family members and a friend of a man. 

Exemption To Sikhs From Wearing Helmets Is A Reasonable Classification Under Article 14, Not Based On Religion: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Kirtesh Vikas Chaudhari vs Union of India 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 304

The exemption given to Sikhs from wearing helmets is not based on religion or caste but is a 'reasonable' classification under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore does not violate any fundamental rights, held the Bombay High Court recently. Sitting at the Nagpur bench, the division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita Mehta dismissed a petition filed by a law student, who challenged the exemption granted to Sikh community members from wearing helmets, which is otherwise mandatory for every citizen under section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA).

'Citizens Being Made Slaves Of Indian Govt; If People Protest, Cases Slapped', Says Bombay High Court

Case Title: Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary vs State of Maharashtra 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 305

Merely because a citizen is opposing certain decisions of the Union Government and raising slogans against it cannot be a ground to extern a citizen from any area, held the Bombay High Court on Thursday (July 2). Single-judge Justice Madhav Jamdar came down heavily on the Mumbai Police for passing an externment order against one Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary (49), the general secretary of the Socialist Democratic Party of India (SDPI), who had been actively organising Morchas and Dharnas against various decisions of the Central Government— including amendments to the Citizenship Act and the Gyanvapi Masjid controversy.

Horse Trading Going On In Entire Maharashtra; If You Have FIRs, Switch Sides, There Is 'Washing Machine', Says Bombay High Court

Case Title: Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 305

The Bombay High Court on Thursday (July 2) orally commented that "horse trading" was going on in the entire State of Maharashtra, and that a political leader can get the criminal cases against oneself closed by joining the "washing machine", in an oblique reference to the ruling party.

Protesting Govt Policies Can't Be Ground For Passing Externment Order: Bombay High Court Quashes Police Action

Case Title: Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 305

The Bombay High Court has held that a person cannot be externed merely for organising protests against government policies, observing that such action infringes the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to live with dignity under the Constitution.

Mere Execution Of Family Arrangement Does Not Constitute Admission Of Suit Properties Being HUF Properties: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Arti Varun Kejriwal vs Vandana Vinay Awatramani

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 306

The Bombay High Court has held that the mere execution of a family arrangement does not, by itself, establish that the properties dealt with therein are Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) properties. The Court observed that a family arrangement cannot be elevated into proof of the existence of an HUF in the absence of foundational evidence establishing the existence of such an HUF and an ancestral nucleus.

Bombay High Court Upholds Disqualification Of Co-operative Housing Society Managing Committee Members For Deliberate Failure To Supply Documents

Case Title: Shashikant M Ramane vs Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, SRA/MHADA

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 307

The Bombay High Court has upheld the disqualification of members of the managing committee of a co-operative housing society for deliberately failing to furnish documents sought by another member of the society within the time prescribed under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Court held that while substantial compliance with the statutory requirement may, in appropriate cases, avoid disqualification, the benefit cannot be extended where there is a deliberate refusal to supply documents despite repeated directions from the statutory authorities.

'Merely Giving Inaccurate Information Not Misrepresentation': Bombay High Court Quashes De-Registration Of 45-Year-Old Housing Society

Case Title: Elite Diagnostic Center Pvt. Ltd. vs Krishna Kunj Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 308

The Bombay High Court has held that the mere act of providing inaccurate or incomplete information does not amount to "misrepresentation" under Section 21A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Court observed that de-registration of a society can be ordered only where the registration itself was obtained through misrepresentation by the applicants, and not on the basis of subsequent events or an alleged error in the Registrar's decision.

Eviction Under MHADA Act Not Automatic; Authority Must Examine Legality Of Dues Claimed By Housing Board: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Pune Housing And Area Development Board vs Vithal Shripati Ladkat

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 309

The Bombay High Court has held that the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act is empowered to examine whether the amount claimed by the Housing Board is "lawfully due" and is not confined merely to ordering eviction. The Court observed that an allottee who receives a tenement under a government quota is not exempt from payment of the price and other lawfully recoverable components, including capitalised interest.

Other Developments:

"It's Been Two Decades, Wake Up Now" Bombay High Court Criticises BMC Over Potholed Roads In Mumbai

The Bombay High Court on Monday (June 29) sharply criticised the the Brihanmumbai Municipal Commissioner (BMC) over its failure to resolve the issue of poor roads in Mumbai for the last 20 years.A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata said it's high time that the BMC must "wake up" to reality and finally put an end to the issue of bad roads and potholed roads in the city.

Bombay High Court Directs Maharashtra Govt To Keep Probe Reports On Threats To Justice Gautam Patel Confidential

The Bombay High Court on Thursday (July 2) directed the Maharashtra Government to ensure that the two reports submitted by Mumbai Police and also the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) with respect to the probe into the threats and attacks on former judge Justice Gautam Patel are not made public.