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

Citations: [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 300 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 309]Nominal IndexSwati Raosaheb More vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 300ANG vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 301Yogesh Shantinath Ghaste vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 302SSD vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 303Kirtesh Vikas Chaudhari vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 304Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 305Arti Varun Kejriwal vs Vandana Vinay Awatramani, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 306Shashikant M Ramane vs Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, SRA/MHADA, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 307Elite Diagnostic Center Pvt. Ltd. vs Krishna Kunj Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 307Pune Housing And Area Development Board vs Vithal Shripati Ladkat, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 309Final Orders/Judgments:Woman Demanding 'Alimony' From Second Husband Despite Subsistence Of First Marriage Can Be Booked For 'Extortion': Bombay High CourtCase Title: Swati Raosaheb More vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 300The 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 CourtCase Title: ANG vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 301The 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 AnswersCase Title: Yogesh Shantinath Ghaste vs State of MaharashtraCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 302The 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 CourtCase Title: SSD vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 303A 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 CourtCase Title: Kirtesh Vikas Chaudhari vs Union of India Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 304The 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 CourtCase Title: Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 305Merely 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 CourtCase Title: Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 305The Bombay High Court on Thursday (July 2) orally commented that "horse...

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

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

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

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers