RUSHIKA JEET CHAVDA WIFE OF JEET MAHESHBHAI CHAVDA vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - P M TRIVEDI — 471/2026

Case under Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 29th April 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJAH010010242026

Filing Number

471/2026

Filing Date

13-Feb-2026

Registration No

471/2026

Registration Date

13-Feb-2026

Court

Ahmedabad District

Judge

2-10th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

29-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 15-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RUSHIKA JEET CHAVDA WIFE OF JEET MAHESHBHAI CHAVDA

    Adv. PARTY IN PERSON

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - P M TRIVEDI

  2. 2.JEET MAHESHBHAI CHAVDA

    Adv. T S MOMIN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 29-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) allowed the application and condoned a 57-63 day delay in filing an appeal by a woman litigant challenging an interim maintenance order. The court found sufficient cause for the delay based on the applicant's status as a party-in-person managing 10-11 concurrent litigations and her good faith explanation that she was initially advised against filing a separate appeal. The court prioritized substantive justice over technical procedural requirements, directing the registry to register the appeal in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 29-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    10th Addl District Judge

  4. 01-Apr-2026

    Order

    10th Addl District Judge

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    10th Addl District Judge

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 13-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 471/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) allowed the application and condoned a 57-63 day delay in filing an appeal by a woman litigant challenging an interim maintenance order. The court found sufficient cause for the delay based on the applicant's status as a party-in-person managing 10-11 concurrent litigations and her good faith explanation that she was initially advised against filing a separate appeal. The court prioritized substantive justice over technical procedural requirements, directing the registry to register the appeal in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case