Shivnanda Dilip Dhurat vs Dilip Kisan Dhurat Advocate - WAGDARE S. J. — 8/2022
Case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Section 18,19,20,22,23. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 02nd June 2026.
PWDVA Appln. - Application under Domestic Violence Act
CNR: MHJN080002432022
Filing Number
173/2022
Filing Date
28-03-2022
Registration No
8/2022
Registration Date
29-03-2022
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Ghansavangi
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C
Decision Date
02nd June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shivnanda Dilip Dhurat
Adv. UDHAN V. D.
Pragati Dilip Dhurat
Aditya Dilip Dhurat
Respondent(s)
Dilip Kisan Dhurat Advocate - WAGDARE S. J.
Kisan Begaji Dhurat
Nanda Kisan Dhurat
Vikas Narayan Dhurat
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C
Disposed
Arguments
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-06-2026 | Disposed |
| 01-06-2026 | Arguments |
| 18-04-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 14-02-2026 | Defence Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: PWDVA No.08/2022 - Shivnanda & Ors. v. Dilip & Ors. The court found that applicant No.1 (wife) proved domestic violence including physical abuse, beatings, dowry demands (Rs.50,000), and suspicion about her chastity by respondent No.1 (husband) and family members. The court granted a protection order prohibiting further violence and ordered respondent No.1 to pay Rs.3,000 monthly maintenance to applicant No.1 only, rejecting maintenance claims for the other applicants (daughter already married; son with respondent). The court denied the Rs.5 lakh compensation claim due to insufficient documentary evidence of specific damages, despite finding domestic violence occurred. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: PWDVA No.08/2022 - Shivnanda & Ors. v. Dilip & Ors. The court found that applicant No.1 (wife) proved domestic violence including physical abuse, beatings, dowry demands (Rs.50,000), and suspicion about her chastity by respondent No.1 (husband) and family members. The court granted a protection order prohibiting further violence and ordered respondent No.1 to pay Rs.3,000 monthly maintenance to applicant No.1 only, rejecting maintenance claims for the other applicants (daughter already married; son with respondent). The court denied the Rs.5 lakh compensation claim due to insufficient documentary evidence of specific damages, despite finding domestic violence occurred. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts