THANKACHI vs AKHIL — 500157/2024
Case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 12. Status: for evidence.. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.
MC - MISCELLANEOUS CASE
CNR: KLTV360043612024
Next Hearing
24th June 2026
e-Filing Number
28-12-2024
Filing Number
1183/2024
Filing Date
31-12-2024
Registration No
500157/2024
Registration Date
31-12-2024
Court
Judicial First class Magistrate Court 2 Nedumangadu
Judge
1-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II NEDUMANGAD
FIR Details
Police Station
Nedumangadu Police Station
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THANKACHI
Adv. RAMYA R NAIR
Respondent(s)
AKHIL
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II NEDUMANGAD
for evidence.
FOR APPEARANCE OF JD
FOR APPEARANCE OF JD
For appearence of Complainant
For reports
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-05-2026 | for evidence. |
| 11-05-2026 | FOR APPEARANCE OF JD |
| 08-05-2026 | FOR APPEARANCE OF JD |
| 07-05-2026 | For appearence of Complainant |
| 06-05-2026 | For reports |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was allowed. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence that the petitioner (mother) was an aggrieved person subjected to domestic violence by the respondents (her son and daughter-in-law). The court granted a protection order prohibiting the respondents from committing domestic violence, threatening, intimidating, or harassing the petitioner, and directed the first respondent (son) to vacate the shared household until final disposal of the case. Both parties were ordered to bear their respective costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was allowed. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence that the petitioner (mother) was an aggrieved person subjected to domestic violence by the respondents (her son and daughter-in-law). The court granted a protection order prohibiting the respondents from committing domestic violence, threatening, intimidating, or harassing the petitioner, and directed the first respondent (son) to vacate the shared household until final disposal of the case. Both parties were ordered to bear their respective costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts