Minakshi Mahadev Mote vs Mahadev Maruti Mote — 297/2019
Case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Section 18,19,20,21,22. Status: Dismissal Order. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHSO140009642019
Next Hearing
08th June 2026
Filing Number
957/2019
Filing Date
16-05-2019
Registration No
297/2019
Registration Date
16-05-2019
Court
Junior Magistrate First Class , Barshi
Judge
1-2nd Jt.CJJD, Judicial Magistrate F.C. Barshi.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Minakshi Mahadev Mote
Respondent(s)
Mahadev Maruti Mote
Maruti Banda Mote
Sakhubai Maruti Mote
Ujwala Somnath Bhosale
Sujata Dhanaji Bhange
Hearing History
Judge: 1-2nd Jt.CJJD, Judicial Magistrate F.C. Barshi.
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
Dismissal Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 10-03-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 05-02-2026 | Dismissal Order |
| 10-12-2025 | Dismissal Order |
| 05-12-2025 | Dismissal Order |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 297/2019 Outcome: Application rejected. Minakshi Mahadev Mote's application for interim custody of her 5-year-old son Arush and residence order under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was rejected. The court found no evidence supporting the respondent's allegations against the applicant's fidelity and prioritized the child's welfare, noting he was over 7 years old, enrolled in 3rd standard with established education, and that disrupting his stability due to parental disputes was inappropriate. The residence order was also denied due to insufficient house description and unverified allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 297/2019 Outcome: Application rejected. Minakshi Mahadev Mote's application for interim custody of her 5-year-old son Arush and residence order under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was rejected. The court found no evidence supporting the respondent's allegations against the applicant's fidelity and prioritized the child's welfare, noting he was over 7 years old, enrolled in 3rd standard with established education, and that disrupting his stability due to parental disputes was inappropriate. The residence order was also denied due to insufficient house description and unverified allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts