Girija (CMP4046/ vs Vijayan — 400424/2019
Case under Domestic Violent Act Section 31. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED U/S 255 BNSS on 19th March 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLAL180017542019
Filing Number
1754/2019
Filing Date
27-06-2019
Registration No
400424/2019
Registration Date
27-06-2019
Court
JFMC I, Mavelikkara
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Mavelikara
Decision Date
19th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED U/S 255 BNSS
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Girija (CMP4046/
Anushka
Respondent(s)
Vijayan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Mavelikara
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 12-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 06-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 26-02-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The Mavelikara First Class Magistrate Court acquitted Vijayan of charges under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act, finding that the complainant (his wife) failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the complainant could not establish that the protection order was communicated to the accused, lacked direct knowledge of document removal, presented insufficient evidence of physical assault (with conflicting accounts of injuries), and failed to produce alleged defamatory social media material as proof. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Mavelikara First Class Magistrate Court acquitted Vijayan of charges under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act, finding that the complainant (his wife) failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the complainant could not establish that the protection order was communicated to the accused, lacked direct knowledge of document removal, presented insufficient evidence of physical assault (with conflicting accounts of injuries), and failed to produce alleged defamatory social media material as proof. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts