Khushnuma vs AFzal Ahmed — 14/2026

Case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Section section29. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 25th May 2026.

CA - CRIMINAL APPEAL

CNR: DLNE010001412026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

14-01-2026

Filing Number

79/2026

Filing Date

15-01-2026

Registration No

14/2026

Registration Date

17-01-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, North-East, KKD

Judge

423-Additional Sessions Judge

Decision Date

25th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

FIR Details

Police Station

Dayal Pur

Year

0

Acts & Sections

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Section section29

Petitioner(s)

Khushnuma

Adv. BIMLESH KUMAR

Respondent(s)

AFzal Ahmed

Hearing History

Judge: 423-Additional Sessions Judge

25-05-2026

Disposed

21-05-2026

Order

23-04-2026

Arguments

09-04-2026

Misc. cases

16-03-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

25-05-2026
COPY OF ORDER
25-05-2026
COPY OF ORDER

Case Summary: Khushnuma v. Afzal Ahmed (CA No. 14/2026) The court dismissed Khushnuma's appeal against the trial court's order deleting respondents 4-11 from a domestic violence complaint. The court held that the complainant failed to specifically plead the existence of a "shared household"—a primary requirement under the Domestic Violence Act—merely asserting a common kitchen during court examination was insufficient. The court found no averments in the original complaint detailing joint household expenses, common kitchen arrangements, or unified family living despite the respondents residing on separate floors with independent kitchens and separate incomes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

23-01-2026
COPY OF ORDER
16-03-2026
COPY OF ORDER
09-04-2026
COPY OF ORDER
23-04-2026
COPY OF ORDER
casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Khushnuma v. Afzal Ahmed (CA No. 14/2026) The court dismissed Khushnuma's appeal against the trial court's order deleting respondents 4-11 from a domestic violence complaint. The court held that the complainant failed to specifically plead the existence of a "shared household"—a primary requirement under the Domestic Violence Act—merely asserting a common kitchen during court examination was insufficient. The court found no averments in the original complaint detailing joint household expenses, common kitchen arrangements, or unified family living despite the respondents residing on separate floors with independent kitchens and separate incomes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Sessions Judge, North-East, KKD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case