Sau. Manda Santosh Sonune and 2 vs Santosh Shreeram Sonune Advocate - SIRSAT S. P. — 189/2017
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 125. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 22nd June 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHJN070010432017
Next Hearing
22nd June 2026
Filing Number
691/2017
Filing Date
05-12-2017
Registration No
189/2017
Registration Date
05-12-2017
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Jafarabad
Judge
6-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sau. Manda Santosh Sonune and 2
Adv. Adv. Sonune
Payal Santosh Sonune
Adv. WAHULE G.B.
Yuwaraj Santosh Sonune
Adv. WAHULE G.B.
Respondent(s)
Santosh Shreeram Sonune Advocate - SIRSAT S. P.
Hearing History
Judge: 6-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-06-2026 | Evidence |
| 28-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 05-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 21-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 189/2017 Court: First Class Judicial Magistrate, Jaffrabad (Jalna District) Parties: Manda Santosh Sonune, Payal Santosh Sonune, and Yuwaraj Santosh Sonune (petitioners) v. Santosh Shreeram Sonune (respondent) Outcome: Petition dismissed. The court rejected the petitioners' application under CrPC Section 125 (maintenance) filed on 05-12-2017. While acknowledging marital discord and maintenance issues, the court found the respondent's counterclaims and property acquisition by petitioner #1 created ambiguity about financial need, making maintenance discretionary rather than mandatory at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 189/2017 Court: First Class Judicial Magistrate, Jaffrabad (Jalna District) Parties: Manda Santosh Sonune, Payal Santosh Sonune, and Yuwaraj Santosh Sonune (petitioners) v. Santosh Shreeram Sonune (respondent) Outcome: Petition dismissed. The court rejected the petitioners' application under CrPC Section 125 (maintenance) filed on 05-12-2017. While acknowledging marital discord and maintenance issues, the court found the respondent's counterclaims and property acquisition by petitioner #1 created ambiguity about financial need, making maintenance discretionary rather than mandatory at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts