Smt. Hema W/o Yamanappa Pyati vs Yamanappa S/o Arjunappa Pyati — 178/2024

Case under Sec of Crpc Section Sec.125. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED/GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 01st April 2026.

Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES

CNR: KAYG210006342024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

179/2024

Filing Date

04-05-2024

Registration No

178/2024

Registration Date

04-05-2024

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,SHAHAPUR

Judge

1231-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC

Decision Date

01st April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED/GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING

Acts & Sections

Sec of CRPC Section Sec.125

Petitioner(s)

Smt. Hema W/o Yamanappa Pyati

Adv. AMRESH DESAI

Respondent(s)

Yamanappa S/o Arjunappa Pyati

Hearing History

Judge: 1231-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC

01-04-2026

Disposed

24-03-2026

ORDERS-CIVIL

17-03-2026

ORDERS-CIVIL

09-03-2026

ORDERS-CIVIL

07-03-2026

ARGUMENTS-Civil

Final Orders / Judgements

01-04-2026
Orders

Court Summary The Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shahapur, partially allowed the wife's petition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, awarding her Rs. 5,000 per month instead of the requested Rs. 10,000. The court found that the husband abandoned her after 12 years of marriage, contracted a second marriage without her knowledge, and failed to provide basic amenities; however, it reduced the amount considering his limited proven income and maternal dependents, rejecting unsubstantiated claims about his agricultural assets. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

09-07-2025
Deposition
19-11-2025
Deposition
17-01-2026
Deposition
11-02-2026
Deposition
19-02-2026
Deposition
casestatus.in Summary

Court Summary The Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shahapur, partially allowed the wife's petition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, awarding her Rs. 5,000 per month instead of the requested Rs. 10,000. The court found that the husband abandoned her after 12 years of marriage, contracted a second marriage without her knowledge, and failed to provide basic amenities; however, it reduced the amount considering his limited proven income and maternal dependents, rejecting unsubstantiated claims about his agricultural assets. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,SHAHAPUR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case