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
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
Petitioner(s)
Khushnuma
Adv. BIMLESH KUMAR
Respondent(s)
AFzal Ahmed
Hearing History
Judge: 423-Additional Sessions Judge
Disposed
Order
Arguments
Misc. cases
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 21-05-2026 | Order |
| 23-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 09-04-2026 | Misc. cases |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
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
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts