Asna Akbar vs Ubais — 400065/2023
Case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Section 12. Status: Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
Crl.MP - CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETN.
CNR: KLER430020552023
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
e-Filing Number
11-12-2023
Filing Number
2045/2023
Filing Date
13-12-2023
Registration No
400065/2023
Registration Date
13-12-2023
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court1, Perumbavoor
Judge
1-Judicial first class magistrate-1
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Asna Akbar
Adv. REGHUKUMAR B
Meetheen
Adv. REGHUKUMAR B
Suhara
Adv. REGHUKUMAR B
Saudha
Adv. REGHUKUMAR B
Respondent(s)
Ubais
MEETHIYAN
SUHARA
SAUDA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial first class magistrate-1
Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence
Objection
Call on
Call on
Call on
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence |
| 21-02-2026 | Objection |
| 16-02-2026 | Call on |
| 30-01-2026 | Call on |
| 16-01-2026 | Call on |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Court allowed the petitioner's petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and struck off the first respondent's (husband's) defence as a consequence of his wilful default in paying Rs. 89,000 in ordered interim maintenance. The court found that the first respondent deliberately evaded payment despite being an able-bodied person earning Rs. 60,000 monthly, while the petitioner (dependent wife) had no independent income, and held that striking off the defence was justified as a last resort to enforce compliance with court orders and prevent economic harassment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Court allowed the petitioner's petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and struck off the first respondent's (husband's) defence as a consequence of his wilful default in paying Rs. 89,000 in ordered interim maintenance. The court found that the first respondent deliberately evaded payment despite being an able-bodied person earning Rs. 60,000 monthly, while the petitioner (dependent wife) had no independent income, and held that striking off the defence was justified as a last resort to enforce compliance with court orders and prevent economic harassment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts