Neena K V vs Pradeep Kumar K Advocate - SASEENDRAN B P — 10/2023

Case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 12. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 19th March 2026.

Case disposed

MC - MISCELLANEOUS CASE

CNR: KLKN310001642023

Filing Number

10/2023

Filing Date

13-Feb-2023

Registration No

10/2023

Registration Date

13-Feb-2023

Court

Gramnyayalaya Irikkur

Judge

1-Nyayadhikari

Decision Date

19-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 12
Crl.mp/237/2025 (300047772025) Classification : Application to Accept Power of Attorney Section Neena K VPradeep Kumar K

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Neena K V

    Adv. T P Hareendran

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Pradeep Kumar K Advocate - SASEENDRAN B P

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: MC 10/2023 - Neena K V v Pradeep Kumar K Advocate Court: Gram Nyayalaya (Village Court), Irikkur Date: March 19, 2026 Judgment: Petition PARTIALLY ALLOWED Key Facts Neena K V filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging domestic violence by her husband Pradeep Kumar K. They were married on April 21, 2002, and have two children. The petitioner claimed she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, forced to give up employment, restricted in movement, and threatened with eviction from their shared household. Court's Decision The court found the petitioner proved domestic violence and granted partial relief: 1. Protection from physical violence: Respondent prohibited from physically harassing petitioner 2. Right to shared household: Respondent cannot evict petitioner from the marital home (XII/51 Ward 13, Irikkur) without following legal procedure The court rejected the petitioner's claim for monetary compensation (₹20 lakhs), as she later endorsed withdrawing this demand. The court also noted the earlier divorce decree made certain relief moot. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Nyayadhikari

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Order/Judgement

    Nyayadhikari

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Nyayadhikari

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Nyayadhikari

  7. 10-Mar-2026

    For further hearing

    Nyayadhikari

  8. 06-Mar-2026

    For further hearing

    Nyayadhikari

  9. 03-Mar-2026

    For further hearing

    Nyayadhikari

  10. 24-Feb-2026

    For further hearing

    Nyayadhikari

  11. 18-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Nyayadhikari

  12. 10-Feb-2026

    for evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  13. 30-Jan-2026

    For evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  14. 27-Jan-2026

    Call on

    Nyayadhikari

  15. 20-Jan-2026

    Further evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  16. 16-Jan-2026

    For evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  17. 13-Jan-2026

    For evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  18. 06-Jan-2026

    for evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  19. 26-Dec-2025

    Call on

    Nyayadhikari

  20. 29-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  21. 13-Feb-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 10/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MC 10/2023 - Neena K V v Pradeep Kumar K Advocate Court: Gram Nyayalaya (Village Court), Irikkur Date: March 19, 2026 Judgment: Petition PARTIALLY ALLOWED Key Facts Neena K V filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging domestic violence by her husband Pradeep Kumar K. They were married on April 21, 2002, and have two children. The petitioner claimed she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, forced to give up employment, restricted in movement, and threatened with eviction from their shared household. Court's Decision The court found the petitioner proved domestic violence and granted partial relief: 1. Protection from physical violence: Respondent prohibited from physically harassing petitioner 2. Right to shared household: Respondent cannot evict petitioner from the marital home (XII/51 Ward 13, Irikkur) without following legal procedure The court rejected the petitioner's claim for monetary compensation (₹20 lakhs), as she later endorsed withdrawing this demand. The court also noted the earlier divorce decree made certain relief moot. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case