Kundile Veettil Muhaseenath Salma vs Afnad Advocate - K SATHYAN — 24/2022

Case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 12. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 20th April 2026.

Case disposed

MC - MISCELLANEOUS CASE

CNR: KLKN250001432022

Filing Number

142/2022

Filing Date

03-Aug-2022

Registration No

24/2022

Registration Date

03-Aug-2022

Court

Gramnyayalaya, Iritty at Payam

Judge

1-Nyayadhikari

Decision Date

20-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 12

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Kundile Veettil Muhaseenath Salma

    Adv. T A Justine

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Afnad Advocate - K SATHYAN

  2. 2.Seenath

    Adv. K SATHYAN

  3. 3.Swaliha

    Adv. K SATHYAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-Apr-2026

    Final OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: MC 24/2022 Court: Village Court (Gram Nyayalaya), Iritti, Payyanur Judge: Sri. Mohamed Mausoom. P. T. Date: April 20, 2026 Petitioner: Kundile Veettil Muhaseenath Salma (21-year-old woman) Respondents: 1. Afnad (husband) 2. Seenath (mother-in-law) 3. Swaliha (sister-in-law) Decision The court partially granted the petitioner's application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court found that the petitioner suffered domestic violence including physical abuse, financial exploitation, and emotional cruelty from her in-laws. The court issued a protection order under Section 18 of the 2005 Act and ordered monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000 from the first respondent. Additionally, the court awarded compensation of Rs. 6,00,000 to be paid jointly by all three respondents under Section 22 of the 2005 Act. However, the court rejected the petitioner's claim for return of specific gold ornaments (20¾ sovereigns) due to insufficient evidence of their alleged misappropriation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Nyayadhikari

  4. 16-Apr-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Nyayadhikari

  5. 13-Apr-2026

    For further hearing

    Nyayadhikari

  6. 04-Apr-2026

    For further hearing

    Nyayadhikari

  7. 30-Mar-2026

    For further hearing

    Nyayadhikari

  8. 16-Mar-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Nyayadhikari

  9. 24-Feb-2026

    For further hearing

    Nyayadhikari

  10. 21-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Nyayadhikari

  11. 12-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Nyayadhikari

  12. 03-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Nyayadhikari

  13. 24-Jan-2026

    For hearing Ea

    Nyayadhikari

  14. 17-Jan-2026

    For cross examination.

    Nyayadhikari

  15. 06-Jan-2026

    Defendant/Respondent Evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  16. 23-Dec-2025

    Odering Cmp

    Nyayadhikari

  17. 18-Dec-2025

    For hearing in Cmp

    Nyayadhikari

  18. 06-Dec-2025

    For Hearing

    Nyayadhikari

  19. 22-Nov-2025

    For evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  20. 15-Nov-2025

    Defendant/Respondent Evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  21. 01-Nov-2025

    Adjourned

    Nyayadhikari

  22. 25-Oct-2025

    Take steps last chance

    Nyayadhikari

  23. 21-Oct-2025

    For Steps

    Nyayadhikari

  24. 07-Oct-2025

    To summon witness

    Nyayadhikari

  25. 12-Sep-2025

    To summon witness

    Nyayadhikari

  26. 25-Aug-2025

    To summon witness

    Nyayadhikari

  27. 12-Aug-2025

    To summon witness

    Nyayadhikari

  28. 01-Aug-2025

    Further evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  29. 28-Jul-2025

    Further evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  30. 21-Jul-2025

    For evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  31. 14-Jul-2025

    For evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  32. 07-Jul-2025

    For evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  33. 25-Jun-2025

    For evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  34. 21-May-2025

    For evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  35. 16-May-2025

    To summon witness

    Nyayadhikari

  36. 09-May-2025

    Adjourned

    Nyayadhikari

  37. 26-Apr-2025

    For evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  38. 11-Apr-2025

    For evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  39. 05-Apr-2025

    For cross examination.

    Nyayadhikari

  40. 29-Mar-2025

    For evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  41. 20-Mar-2025

    For evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  42. 05-Feb-2025

    For cross examination.

    Nyayadhikari

  43. 11-Dec-2024

    For cross examination.

    Nyayadhikari

  44. 20-Nov-2024

    For evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  45. 23-Oct-2024

    For evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  46. 18-Sep-2024

    For evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  47. 14-Aug-2024

    For evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  48. 10-Jul-2024

    For Counter

    Nyayadhikari

  49. 04-Jul-2024

    For Counter

    Nyayadhikari

  50. 22-May-2024

    For Counter

    Nyayadhikari

  51. 25-Apr-2024

    For Counter

    Nyayadhikari

  52. 22-Mar-2024

    Report on mediation

    Nyayadhikari

  53. 08-Dec-2023

    For Counter

    Nyayadhikari

  54. 20-Sep-2023

    For Counter

    Nyayadhikari

  55. 19-Jul-2023

    For Counter

    Nyayadhikari

  56. 14-Jun-2023

    For Counter

    Nyayadhikari

  57. 03-May-2023

    For Counter

    Nyayadhikari

  58. 08-Feb-2023

    For Counter

    Nyayadhikari

  59. 16-Nov-2022

    For Counter

    Nyayadhikari

  60. 31-Aug-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  61. 03-Aug-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 24/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MC 24/2022 Court: Village Court (Gram Nyayalaya), Iritti, Payyanur Judge: Sri. Mohamed Mausoom. P. T. Date: April 20, 2026 Petitioner: Kundile Veettil Muhaseenath Salma (21-year-old woman) Respondents: 1. Afnad (husband) 2. Seenath (mother-in-law) 3. Swaliha (sister-in-law) Decision The court partially granted the petitioner's application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court found that the petitioner suffered domestic violence including physical abuse, financial exploitation, and emotional cruelty from her in-laws. The court issued a protection order under Section 18 of the 2005 Act and ordered monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000 from the first respondent. Additionally, the court awarded compensation of Rs. 6,00,000 to be paid jointly by all three respondents under Section 22 of the 2005 Act. However, the court rejected the petitioner's claim for return of specific gold ornaments (20¾ sovereigns) due to insufficient evidence of their alleged misappropriation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case