Sayeeda P.K vs Mohammed Hussain Advocate - ABDUL RASHID K — 39/2025
Case under Domestic Violence Act Section 12. Status: Call with MP. Next hearing: 20th June 2026.
MC - MISCELLANEOUS CASE
CNR: KLTR360002082025
Next Hearing
20th June 2026
Filing Number
3600038/2025
Filing Date
27-11-2025
Registration No
39/2025
Registration Date
27-11-2025
Court
Gramanyayalaya, Mathilakam
Judge
1-Nyayadhikari ,Gram Nyayalaya Mathilakam
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sayeeda P.K
Adv. AYSHA E M
Respondent(s)
Mohammed Hussain Advocate - ABDUL RASHID K
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Nyayadhikari ,Gram Nyayalaya Mathilakam
Call with MP
Orders in IA
Orders in IA
FOR HEARING
For further hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-05-2026 | Call with MP |
| 18-05-2026 | Orders in IA |
| 30-04-2026 | Orders in IA |
| 28-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 16-03-2026 | For further hearing |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: CMP No.1/2026 IN MC 39/2025 Outcome: Petition dismissed. Facts: Sayeeda P.K. sought monthly maintenance of ₹25,000 from her husband Mohammed Hussain under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, claiming she received 90 tolas of gold jewelry as dowry which he misused in his real estate business, while she has no independent income. Court's Reasoning: The court found the petitioner's financial claims in her affidavit lack credibility. Court observed she possesses significant assets including 1/3 share in land/property (per S.R.O. 3453/2008), 1/3 share in an Ernakulam flat, and 1/3 share in Medicare Hospital stock generating monthly income—all concealed from the court. Referencing *Rajnesh v. Neha* (2020), the court held both parties must file truthful affidavits regarding assets. Without evidence, the petition cannot be granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CMP No.1/2026 IN MC 39/2025 Outcome: Petition dismissed. Facts: Sayeeda P.K. sought monthly maintenance of ₹25,000 from her husband Mohammed Hussain under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, claiming she received 90 tolas of gold jewelry as dowry which he misused in his real estate business, while she has no independent income. Court's Reasoning: The court found the petitioner's financial claims in her affidavit lack credibility. Court observed she possesses significant assets including 1/3 share in land/property (per S.R.O. 3453/2008), 1/3 share in an Ernakulam flat, and 1/3 share in Medicare Hospital stock generating monthly income—all concealed from the court. Referencing *Rajnesh v. Neha* (2020), the court held both parties must file truthful affidavits regarding assets. Without evidence, the petition cannot be granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts