Sillu Alpha Antony vs Lijo jose — 101674/2024
Case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 144. Status: Issue NBW. Next hearing: 20th May 2026.
Crl.MP - CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETN.
CNR: KLAL320024752024
Next Hearing
20th May 2026
e-Filing Number
03-09-2024
Filing Number
102470/2024
Filing Date
03-09-2024
Registration No
101674/2024
Registration Date
03-09-2024
Court
JFCM Ramankary
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sillu Alpha Antony
Adv. Sudeep V Nair
Respondent(s)
Lijo jose
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary
Issue NBW
Issue Non Bailable Warrant
Appearance Of Parties
Call on
Appearance Of Parties
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Issue NBW | |
| 19-02-2026 | Issue Non Bailable Warrant | |
| 16-02-2026 | Appearance Of Parties | |
| 13-02-2026 | Call on | |
| 07-02-2026 | Appearance Of Parties |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition (CMP 1862/2025) seeking modification of a domestic maintenance order under Section 25 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was dismissed. The applicant (respondent in original case MC 12/2022) claimed financial hardship after losing his job abroad and argued that the respondent/applicant earning ₹50,000 monthly as a teacher should maintain him. The court rejected this argument as unsustainable, finding no genuine change in circumstances justifying modification of the original order requiring him to pay ₹5,000 monthly plus ₹7,000 rent, and dismissed the application as devoid of merit with no costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition (CMP 1862/2025) seeking modification of a domestic maintenance order under Section 25 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was dismissed. The applicant (respondent in original case MC 12/2022) claimed financial hardship after losing his job abroad and argued that the respondent/applicant earning ₹50,000 monthly as a teacher should maintain him. The court rejected this argument as unsustainable, finding no genuine change in circumstances justifying modification of the original order requiring him to pay ₹5,000 monthly plus ₹7,000 rent, and dismissed the application as devoid of merit with no costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts