Sou Priti Mohan Jagtap vs Mohan Harishchandra Jagtap Advocate - Jadhav Prakash Tatyasaheb — 29/2024
Case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Section 12,18,20,22. Status: Argument on Exh.____Unready. Next hearing: 11th May 2026.
PWDVA Appln. - Application under Domestic Violence Act
CNR: MHSN060009082024
Next Hearing
11th May 2026
e-Filing Number
04-04-2024
Filing Number
726/2024
Filing Date
05-04-2024
Registration No
29/2024
Registration Date
12-04-2024
Court
Civil Court Junior Division,Miraj
Judge
3-2nd JT. CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. and J.M.F.C. MIRAJ
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sou Priti Mohan Jagtap
Adv. Suryakant Sutar
Respondent(s)
Mohan Harishchandra Jagtap Advocate - Jadhav Prakash Tatyasaheb
Rohan Mohan Jagtap
Prachi Nilesh Kudale
Hearing History
Judge: 3-2nd JT. CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. and J.M.F.C. MIRAJ
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 24-12-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 30-10-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 21-08-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 05-07-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: In this Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) case (Priti vs. Mohan and ors., PWDVA No. 29/2024), the court found prima facie that the applicant was not residing within its territorial jurisdiction, as she claimed residence in Erandoli (Sangli) but the FIR showed her address in Saswad (Pune). Rather than immediately dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction, the court decided to keep the case in abeyance pending the Bombay High Court's decision on a transfer petition (MCA No. 440/2024) filed by respondents seeking to transfer the proceedings to Pune. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: In this Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) case (Priti vs. Mohan and ors., PWDVA No. 29/2024), the court found prima facie that the applicant was not residing within its territorial jurisdiction, as she claimed residence in Erandoli (Sangli) but the FIR showed her address in Saswad (Pune). Rather than immediately dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction, the court decided to keep the case in abeyance pending the Bombay High Court's decision on a transfer petition (MCA No. 440/2024) filed by respondents seeking to transfer the proceedings to Pune. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts