Muhsina vs Nazarudeen — 130/2024

Case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 12. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 29th April 2026.

Crl.MP - CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETN.

CNR: KLAL240014182024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

14-10-2024

Filing Number

101383/2024

Filing Date

15-10-2024

Registration No

130/2024

Registration Date

16-10-2024

Court

JFCM II, Haripad

Judge

1-Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Haripad

Decision Date

29th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 12
Crl.MP/1636/2025 Classification : Petition To Set Aside Order / Decree Section NazarudeenMuhsina
Crl.MP/1637/2025 Classification : Advance Application Section NazarudeenMuhsina
Crl.MP/1/2026 Classification : Petition Section MuhsinaNazarudeen

Petitioner(s)

Muhsina

Adv. SIVAPRASAD B

Respondent(s)

Nazarudeen

Hearing History

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

29-04-2026

Disposed

13-04-2026

Adjourned

07-04-2026

Order/ Judgement

01-04-2026

FOR HEARING

24-03-2026

Appearance of Petitioner

Final Orders / Judgements

29-04-2026

Judgement

Interim Orders

11-03-2026
Order

The Judicial Magistrate struck off the respondent's (father's) defence in a domestic violence maintenance case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The father was ordered to pay Rs. 3,000 monthly maintenance to his 16-year-old minor daughter but willfully failed to pay Rs. 39,000 in arrears despite earning Rs. 60,000 monthly, providing no legitimate excuse for non-compliance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Judicial Magistrate struck off the respondent's (father's) defence in a domestic violence maintenance case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The father was ordered to pay Rs. 3,000 monthly maintenance to his 16-year-old minor daughter but willfully failed to pay Rs. 39,000 in arrears despite earning Rs. 60,000 monthly, providing no legitimate excuse for non-compliance. 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