Surekha Suresh Thorat vs Suresh Prakash Thorat Advocate - JADHAV S. S. — 359/2023
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 125. Status: Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHJN040024362023
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
e-Filing Number
13-09-2023
Filing Number
1501/2023
Filing Date
13-09-2023
Registration No
359/2023
Registration Date
13-09-2023
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Ambad
Judge
5-2nd Jt. CJJD and JMFC Court Ambad
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Surekha Suresh Thorat
Adv. SHAIKH S.A.
Pram Suresh Thorat
Adv. Shaikh salim khalil
Respondent(s)
Suresh Prakash Thorat Advocate - JADHAV S. S.
Hearing History
Judge: 5-2nd Jt. CJJD and JMFC Court Ambad
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Depositing Amount
Depositing Amount
Depositing Amount
Depositing Amount
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-06-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 28-05-2026 | Depositing Amount |
| 14-05-2026 | Depositing Amount |
| 16-04-2026 | Depositing Amount |
| 16-03-2026 | Depositing Amount |
Interim Orders
Case 359/2023 Summary Surekha Suresh Thorat and Pram Suresh Thorat v. Suresh Prakash Thorat The court partially allowed the petition filed for interim maintenance. Petitioner (wife) claimed she and her son lack means of subsistence while respondent (husband) earns ₹30,000-40,000 monthly plus agricultural income. The court found the husband deliberately avoiding maintenance obligations despite financial capacity. However, the court reduced the requested amount and ordered the respondent to pay ₹3,000/month to the wife and ₹2,000/month to the son (total ₹5,000/month) as interim maintenance from the petition filing date until final judgment. This order remains effective pending case conclusion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 359/2023 Summary Surekha Suresh Thorat and Pram Suresh Thorat v. Suresh Prakash Thorat The court partially allowed the petition filed for interim maintenance. Petitioner (wife) claimed she and her son lack means of subsistence while respondent (husband) earns ₹30,000-40,000 monthly plus agricultural income. The court found the husband deliberately avoiding maintenance obligations despite financial capacity. However, the court reduced the requested amount and ordered the respondent to pay ₹3,000/month to the wife and ₹2,000/month to the son (total ₹5,000/month) as interim maintenance from the petition filing date until final judgment. This order remains effective pending case conclusion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts