GITABEN JAYASUKH RATHOD vs JAYASUKH MEGHA RATHOD Advocate - S K BELA — 55/2024

Case under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 12,18,19,22,23. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALA on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC

CNR: GJDW030005192024

Filing Number

55/2024

Filing Date

19-Mar-2024

Registration No

55/2024

Registration Date

19-Mar-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, KALYANPUR

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOK ADALA

Last updated 27-May-2026

Acts & Sections

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 12,18,19,22,23

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GITABEN JAYASUKH RATHOD

    Adv. N J GHEDIYA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JAYASUKH MEGHA RATHOD Advocate - S K BELA

  2. 2.MEGHA SIDA RATHOD

    Adv. S K BELA

  3. 3.SOMIBEN MEGHA RATHOD

    Adv. S K BELA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 55/2024 Decision: The court disposed of the case by ordering dismissal as settled. The parties to the dispute under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (sections 12, 18, 19, 22, 23) reached a settlement, and the petitioner withdrew further proceedings, rendering continuation unnecessary. Key Reasoning: Since the matter was amicably resolved between the parties, there was no justiciable issue remaining to be adjudicated, warranting case dismissal with cost implications as applicable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Applicant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Applicant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Applicant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 05-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Applicant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 17-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Applicant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 01-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Applicant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 27-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Applicant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 09-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Applicant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 11-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Applicant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 14-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Applicant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 24-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Applicant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 23-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Applicant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 24-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Applicant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 08-May-2025

    Evidence Of Applicant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 20-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Applicant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 30-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Applicant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 20-Dec-2024

    Evidence Of Applicant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 26-Oct-2024

    Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 23-Oct-2024

    Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 28-Aug-2024

    Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  24. 11-Jul-2024

    Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  25. 01-Jul-2024

    Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  26. 27-May-2024

    Reply

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  27. 06-May-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  28. 19-Mar-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 55/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 55/2024 Decision: The court disposed of the case by ordering dismissal as settled. The parties to the dispute under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (sections 12, 18, 19, 22, 23) reached a settlement, and the petitioner withdrew further proceedings, rendering continuation unnecessary. Key Reasoning: Since the matter was amicably resolved between the parties, there was no justiciable issue remaining to be adjudicated, warranting case dismissal with cost implications as applicable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case