SEJALBEN JIGNESHBHAI SHAH vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - DGP — 269/2024

Case under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 29,12,18,19,20,21,22,. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 06th March 2026.

CR A - CRIMINAL APPEAL

CNR: GJSN010026142024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

269/2024

Filing Date

04-12-2024

Registration No

269/2024

Registration Date

04-12-2024

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURENDRANAGAR

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

Decision Date

06th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 Section 29,12,18,19,20,21,22,

Petitioner(s)

SEJALBEN JIGNESHBHAI SHAH

Adv. S A RAMANANDI

Respondent(s)

Government of Gujarat Advocate - DGP

MANJULABEN HIMMATLAL SHAH

Adv. N B LAKHATARIA

BHAVNABEN HIMMATLAL SHAH

Adv. N B LAKHATARIA

SANGITABEN HIMMATLAL SHAH W.O. RAJESHBHAI SANGHVI

Adv. N B LAKHATARIA

PRITIBEN HIMMATLAL SHAH W.O. KAUSHIKKUMAR MAHETA

Adv. N B LAKHATARIA

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

06-03-2026

Disposed

18-02-2026

JUDGEMENT

16-02-2026

HEARING

20-01-2026

HEARING

08-01-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

06-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The Sessions Judge dismissed the appellant's appeal under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, confirming the trial court's finding that despite proving domestic violence, the appellant is not entitled to suitable accommodation or alternative rent under Section 19. The court found that the appellant owns a house in her own name with a monthly income of Rs. 89,172 and is paying a home loan EMI, demonstrating she has adequate alternative accommodation and is not in a destitute situation requiring the respondents' financial support. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Sessions Judge dismissed the appellant's appeal under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, confirming the trial court's finding that despite proving domestic violence, the appellant is not entitled to suitable accommodation or alternative rent under Section 19. The court found that the appellant owns a house in her own name with a monthly income of Rs. 89,172 and is paying a home loan EMI, demonstrating she has adequate alternative accommodation and is not in a destitute situation requiring the respondents' financial support. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURENDRANAGAR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case