Arathi vs Manu Advocate - ANIL BABU — 100001/2020

Case under Domestic Violent Act Section 12. Status: For evidence. Next hearing: 13th May 2026.

MC - MISCELLANEOUS CASE

CNR: KLAL240000012020

For evidence

Next Hearing

13th May 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

100001/2020

Filing Date

01-01-2020

Registration No

100001/2020

Registration Date

01-01-2020

Court

JFCM II, Haripad

Judge

1-Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Haripad

Acts & Sections

Domestic Violent Act Section 12
Crl.MP/1665/2025 Classification : Application To Release Cash Deposited Section ArathiManu
Crl.MP/1715/2025 Classification : Advance Application Section ManuArathi
Crl.MP/1716/2025 Classification : Petition Section ManuArathi
Crl.MP/1717/2025 Classification : Petition Section ManuArav

Petitioner(s)

Arathi

Adv. ARAVINDAKSHAN. R

Arav

Adv. ARAVINDAKSHAN. R

Respondent(s)

Manu Advocate - ANIL BABU

Pushpa

Adv. ANIL BABU

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Haripad

26-03-2026

For evidence

12-03-2026

for evidence.

09-03-2026

Adjourned

03-03-2026

Call on

26-02-2026

Oders in CMP

Interim Orders

30-09-2023
Judgement
03-01-2026
Order

SUMMARY The petition filed by the respondent (Manu) under Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking to alter the interim maintenance order was dismissed. The court found that the interim maintenance order had already been confirmed by the appellate court and that the respondent's attempt to produce deposition evidence and photographs regarding the petitioner's alleged employment was insufficient to alter the confirmed order, noting this appeared to be an attempt to protract payment of maintenance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY The petition filed by the respondent (Manu) under Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking to alter the interim maintenance order was dismissed. The court found that the interim maintenance order had already been confirmed by the appellate court and that the respondent's attempt to produce deposition evidence and photographs regarding the petitioner's alleged employment was insufficient to alter the confirmed order, noting this appeared to be an attempt to protract payment of maintenance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

JFCM II, Haripad All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case