Rachna Baban Ubhare vs Baban Kisan Ubhare Advocate - Dandekar A. P. — 41/2022

Case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Section 12. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 09th May 2026.

Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application

CNR: MHRG090001442022

Hearing

Next Hearing

09th May 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

113/2022

Filing Date

04-03-2022

Registration No

41/2022

Registration Date

04-03-2022

Court

Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C., Roha

Judge

1-C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C Roha

Acts & Sections

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Section 12

Petitioner(s)

Rachna Baban Ubhare

Adv. Varma D. M.

Respondent(s)

Baban Kisan Ubhare Advocate - Dandekar A. P.

Hearing History

Judge: 1-C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C Roha

01-04-2026

Hearing

10-03-2026

For Referal to the Special Mediation Drive Mediation For the Nation _Ready

13-02-2026

For Referal to the Special Mediation Drive Mediation For the Nation _Ready

22-12-2025

Hearing

24-11-2025

Hearing

Interim Orders

15-07-2024
Order on Exhibit

Court Order Summary Case: Criminal Inquiry Application No. 41/2022 (Rachna v. Baban) under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Outcome: The petition was partially allowed. The court ordered the respondent (husband) to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 2,500 per month to the petitioner (wife) from the date of application until final disposal of the main case. The petition for a protective order under Section 18 of the Act was rejected/dismissed as the wife was found to be safe and residing with her parents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Order Summary Case: Criminal Inquiry Application No. 41/2022 (Rachna v. Baban) under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Outcome: The petition was partially allowed. The court ordered the respondent (husband) to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 2,500 per month to the petitioner (wife) from the date of application until final disposal of the main case. The petition for a protective order under Section 18 of the Act was rejected/dismissed as the wife was found to be safe and residing with her parents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C., Roha All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case