Siddamma W/o Prakash Maitri Age 28yrs Occ Household R/o Surwar tq.Sedam Dist.klb vs Prakash S/o Tuljappa Maitri Age 34yrs occ Agri.and Driver R/o Surwar Tq.Sedam Dist.klb — 24/2025
Case under 125 of Class 1 of Crpc Section u/sec144. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED /REJECTED OTHERWISE on 07th March 2026.
Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES
CNR: KAKB720000622025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
24/2025
Filing Date
10-01-2025
Registration No
24/2025
Registration Date
10-01-2025
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SEDAM
Judge
329-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. JMFC,Sedam
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED /REJECTED OTHERWISE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Siddamma W/o Prakash Maitri Age 28yrs Occ Household R/o Surwar tq.Sedam Dist.klb
Adv. A M
Tulajappa S/o Prakash Maitri Age 9yrs minor u/g of next friend natural mother by name Smt.Siddamma
Trishul S/o Prakash Maitri Age 7yrs minor u/g of next friend natural mother by name Smt.Siddamma w/o
Respondent(s)
Prakash S/o Tuljappa Maitri Age 34yrs occ Agri.and Driver R/o Surwar Tq.Sedam Dist.klb
Hearing History
Judge: 329-CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. JMFC,Sedam
Disposed
NOTICE
NOTICE
NOTICE
APPEARANCE OF PARTY
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 31-01-2026 | NOTICE | |
| 17-12-2025 | NOTICE | |
| 29-11-2025 | NOTICE | |
| 04-10-2025 | APPEARANCE OF PARTY |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: In Criminal Misc. 24/2025, the Sedam JMFC dismissed the case for non-prosecution. Although the petitioner's counsel was present and sought an adjournment for further steps, the court found no valid grounds for delay, noting that sufficient time had already been granted. The court rejected the adjournment request and dismissed the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary: In Criminal Misc. 24/2025, the Sedam JMFC dismissed the case for non-prosecution. Although the petitioner's counsel was present and sought an adjournment for further steps, the court found no valid grounds for delay, noting that sufficient time had already been granted. The court rejected the adjournment request and dismissed the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts