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

Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence

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

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Section 12

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

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

20-02-2025
Order

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court1, Perumbavoor All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case