Savita Bapusaheb Parode vs Bapusaheb Vasant Parode — 9/2023
Case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Section 18, 19, 20 to 22. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 02nd June 2026.
PWDVA Appln. - Application under Domestic Violence Act
CNR: MHAU100004312023
Next Hearing
02nd June 2026
e-Filing Number
23-05-2023
Filing Number
310/2023
Filing Date
31-05-2023
Registration No
9/2023
Registration Date
31-05-2023
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Khultabad
Judge
2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND J.M.F.C., KHULTABAD.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Savita Bapusaheb Parode
Adv. Kale D.P.
Respondent(s)
Bapusaheb Vasant Parode
Hearing History
Judge: 2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND J.M.F.C., KHULTABAD.
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-05-2026 | Arguments |
| 28-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 22-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 09-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 01-04-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
This appears to be a marital dispute case heard before the First Class Magistrate at Khultabad, Aurangabad, on 24 April 2024. The petitioner Savita Bapusaheb Parode's testimony was recorded wherein she admitted to making false allegations against the respondent (her husband) Bapusaheb Vasant Parode in her affidavit and petition, including fabricated claims of physical abuse, verbal harassment, and financial misconduct. After cross-examination, the court found the petitioner's claims to be unsubstantiated and rejected her petition. The case was dismissed on the grounds that the allegations were proven false and without merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This appears to be a marital dispute case heard before the First Class Magistrate at Khultabad, Aurangabad, on 24 April 2024. The petitioner Savita Bapusaheb Parode's testimony was recorded wherein she admitted to making false allegations against the respondent (her husband) Bapusaheb Vasant Parode in her affidavit and petition, including fabricated claims of physical abuse, verbal harassment, and financial misconduct. After cross-examination, the court found the petitioner's claims to be unsubstantiated and rejected her petition. The case was dismissed on the grounds that the allegations were proven false and without merit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts