Vijay Atmaram Changade vs Jyoti Vijay Changade Advocate - Deshmukh Uday Achyutrao — 17/2025

Case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Section 29. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 02nd April 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.Appeal - Criminal Appeal

CNR: MHWS010003972025

e-Filing Number

24-06-2024

Filing Number

229/2025

Filing Date

19-Apr-2025

Registration No

17/2025

Registration Date

22-Apr-2025

Court

District and Sessions Court, Washim

Judge

12-District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

Decision Date

02-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Section 29

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Vijay Atmaram Changade

    Adv. BALI VIJAY KESHAV

  2. 2.Gajanan Atmaram Changade

    Adv. PHATAK PRAMOD BHALCHANDRA

  3. 3.Sumanbai Atmaram Changade

    Adv. PHATAK PRAMOD BHALCHANDRA

  4. 4.Seema Gajanan Changade

    Adv. PHATAK PRAMOD BHALCHANDRA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Jyoti Vijay Changade Advocate - Deshmukh Uday Achyutrao

  2. 2.Shruti Vijay Changade

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: Criminal Appeal No. 17/2025 Court Decision: The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appellants' appeal, quashing the trial court's domestic violence judgment and remanding the case for fresh adjudication. The court found the appellants were prevented by sufficient reason (COVID-19 lockdown and distance) from filing their written statement and deserved an opportunity to contest on merits. Key Reasoning: While the trial court had established domestic violence—harassment over inability to bear a son, confiscation of gold ornaments, and eviction in January 2018—the appellants' procedural non-participation was excused due to pandemic-related court closures and geographic distance. The court maintained interim maintenance orders (₹5,000/month for the wife, ₹2,000 for the 8-year-old daughter) pending retrial, protecting respondents from hardship. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  4. 01-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  5. 24-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  7. 16-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  8. 12-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  9. 25-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  10. 18-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  11. 10-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  12. 15-Jan-2026

    Hearing

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  13. 17-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  14. 04-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  15. 06-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  16. 09-Oct-2025

    Ex-Parte Order

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  17. 11-Sep-2025

    Awaiting Notice

    District Judge 3 and Asj, Washim

  18. 25-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  19. 19-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 17/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Criminal Appeal No. 17/2025 Court Decision: The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appellants' appeal, quashing the trial court's domestic violence judgment and remanding the case for fresh adjudication. The court found the appellants were prevented by sufficient reason (COVID-19 lockdown and distance) from filing their written statement and deserved an opportunity to contest on merits. Key Reasoning: While the trial court had established domestic violence—harassment over inability to bear a son, confiscation of gold ornaments, and eviction in January 2018—the appellants' procedural non-participation was excused due to pandemic-related court closures and geographic distance. The court maintained interim maintenance orders (₹5,000/month for the wife, ₹2,000 for the 8-year-old daughter) pending retrial, protecting respondents from hardship. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case