Shobha Antaram Jadhav and other 1 vs Antaram Jagganath Jadhav Advocate - Niturkar Rajendra S — 9/2019
Case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Section 12. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.
PWDVA Appln. - Application under Domestic Violence Act
CNR: MHLA130008802019
Next Hearing
05th June 2026
Filing Number
565/2019
Filing Date
07-10-2019
Registration No
9/2019
Registration Date
07-10-2019
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Renapur
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.Renapur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shobha Antaram Jadhav and other 1
Adv. Mane Mahesh D
Radha Antaram Jadhav
Adv. Mane Mahesh D
Respondent(s)
Antaram Jagganath Jadhav Advocate - Niturkar Rajendra S
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge J.D. and J.M.F.C.Renapur
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 02-05-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 09-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 04-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 25-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: PWDVA Application No. 09/2019 Outcome: Application rejected. Shobha Antaram Jadhav and her daughter sought an injunction to prevent electricity disconnection of their residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court rejected the application on grounds that: (1) the house is owned by Pratik Antram Jadhav (respondent's son), not the respondent himself, making him not a proper party; (2) no residence order was sought or granted; and (3) the injunction was sought against M.S.E.D.C.L., a third party not involved in the proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: PWDVA Application No. 09/2019 Outcome: Application rejected. Shobha Antaram Jadhav and her daughter sought an injunction to prevent electricity disconnection of their residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court rejected the application on grounds that: (1) the house is owned by Pratik Antram Jadhav (respondent's son), not the respondent himself, making him not a proper party; (2) no residence order was sought or granted; and (3) the injunction was sought against M.S.E.D.C.L., a third party not involved in the proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts