Mita Kartik Avhad vs Kartik Sanjiv Avhad — 36/2020
Case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Section 12,18,19,20,22,23. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 04th May 2026.
PWDVA Appln. - Application under Domestic Violence Act
CNR: MHNS210009852020
Next Hearing
04th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
969/2020
Filing Date
23-10-2020
Registration No
36/2020
Registration Date
23-10-2020
Court
Civil and Criminal Court ,Manmad
Judge
2-EXTRA JOINT CIVIL JUDGE J.D. JMFC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mita Kartik Avhad
Adv. More Sudhakar W
Respondent(s)
Kartik Sanjiv Avhad
Meena Sanjiv Avhad
Sanjiv Shankar Avhad
Shubham Sanjiv Avhad
Mangal Rajendra Sangale
Rajendra Shankar Avhad
Shaila Rajendra Avhad
Prakash Shankar Avhad
Mahesh Shivaji Avhad
Vishnu Keru Sanap
Lata Vishnu Sanap
Vicky Vishnu Sanap
Ramkrushna Keru Sanap
Padma Dilip Bodke
Hearing History
Judge: 2-EXTRA JOINT CIVIL JUDGE J.D. JMFC
Evidence
Evidence
Order on Exh
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 13-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 10-03-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 02-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 13-02-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Outcome: The court rejected the applicant's interim relief applications under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The applicant (Mita Kartik Avhad) sought monthly maintenance of Rs. 35,000, rent assistance of Rs. 20,000, and a shared household residence order, but the court found she had suppressed material facts in her affidavit (including an existing maintenance order of Rs. 15,000/month from another court and immovable properties in her name) and therefore was not entitled to equitable relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Outcome: The court rejected the applicant's interim relief applications under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The applicant (Mita Kartik Avhad) sought monthly maintenance of Rs. 35,000, rent assistance of Rs. 20,000, and a shared household residence order, but the court found she had suppressed material facts in her affidavit (including an existing maintenance order of Rs. 15,000/month from another court and immovable properties in her name) and therefore was not entitled to equitable relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts