Vedika Sandip Shinde vs Sandip Vaman Shinde — 34/2024
Case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Section 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23. Status: Awaiting Warrant. Next hearing: 05th May 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHRG090002632024
Next Hearing
05th May 2026
e-Filing Number
18-04-2024
Filing Number
216/2024
Filing Date
19-04-2024
Registration No
34/2024
Registration Date
20-04-2024
Court
Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C., Roha
Judge
1-C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C Roha
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vedika Sandip Shinde
Adv. MORE DEVYANI JANARDAN
Ayansh Sandip Shinde
Adv. MORE DEVYANI JANARDAN
Respondent(s)
Sandip Vaman Shinde
Vaman Sitaram Shinde
Samidha Ravindra Kadam
Hearing History
Judge: 1-C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C Roha
Awaiting Warrant
Awaiting Warrant
Awaiting Warrant
Awaiting Warrant
Lok-Nyayalaya
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Awaiting Warrant | |
| 09-03-2026 | Awaiting Warrant | |
| 02-02-2026 | Awaiting Warrant | |
| 05-01-2026 | Awaiting Warrant | |
| 13-12-2025 | Lok-Nyayalaya |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: The petition filed by Vedika Shinde under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was partially allowed. The court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000 per month to the petitioner (Vedika Shinde) and Rs. 1,000 per month each for her two children (Ayansh Sandeep Shinde) from the respondent (Sandeep Shinde) until the final decision in the main case. The court found that the respondent has the primary responsibility to maintain his wife and children, and the petitioner demonstrated financial dependency despite her employment as a professor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: The petition filed by Vedika Shinde under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was partially allowed. The court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000 per month to the petitioner (Vedika Shinde) and Rs. 1,000 per month each for her two children (Ayansh Sandeep Shinde) from the respondent (Sandeep Shinde) until the final decision in the main case. The court found that the respondent has the primary responsibility to maintain his wife and children, and the petitioner demonstrated financial dependency despite her employment as a professor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts