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
e-Filing Number
11-12-2023
Filing Number
2045/2023
Filing Date
13-Dec-2023
Registration No
400065/2023
Registration Date
13-Dec-2023
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court1, Perumbavoor
Judge
1-Judicial first class magistrate-1
Last updated 26-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Asna Akbar
Adv. REGHUKUMAR B
-
2.Meetheen
Adv. REGHUKUMAR B
-
3.Suhara
Adv. REGHUKUMAR B
-
4.Saudha
Adv. REGHUKUMAR B
Respondent(s)
-
1.Ubais
-
2.MEETHIYAN
-
3.SUHARA
-
4.SAUDA
Case History
-
10-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
07-Mar-2026
Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
21-Feb-2026
Objection
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
16-Feb-2026
Call on
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
30-Jan-2026
Call on
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
16-Jan-2026
Call on
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
12-Dec-2025
Call on
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
06-Dec-2025
Call on
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
07-Nov-2025
Call on
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
06-Oct-2025
Prays time
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
09-Sep-2025
Call on
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
26-Jul-2025
Verify and report
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
13-Jun-2025
Call on
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
04-Jun-2025
Call on
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
29-May-2025
for evidence.
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
08-May-2025
for evidence.
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
22-Apr-2025
Issue distress warrent
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
02-Apr-2025
for evidence.
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
04-Mar-2025
for evidence.
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
20-Feb-2025
OrderView PDF
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.
-
20-Feb-2025
for evidence.
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
17-Feb-2025
Order/Judgement
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
06-Feb-2025
Call on
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
21-Jan-2025
Call on
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
31-Dec-2024
Call on
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
17-Dec-2024
Call on
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
16-Nov-2024
Call on
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
19-Oct-2024
Call on
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
23-Sep-2024
Call on
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
23-Aug-2024
Call on
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
27-Jul-2024
Call on
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
23-May-2024
For reports
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
20-Apr-2024
Objection
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
27-Mar-2024
Call on
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
24-Feb-2024
Issue notice
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
31-Jan-2024
Return of notice
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
22-Jan-2024
Return of notice
Judicial first class magistrate-1
-
06-Jan-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-Dec-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 400065/2023
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.
Explore other courts