Kavita Gopal Gunjkar vs Ashok Sakharam Gunjkar Advocate - SHIRSAT SATISH SURESH — 13/2023
Case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act Section 12,18,19,20,22. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 10th April 2026.
PWDVA Appln. - Application under Domestic Violence Act
CNR: MHWS100005262023
Filing Number
448/2023
Filing Date
27-03-2023
Registration No
13/2023
Registration Date
27-03-2023
Court
Civil Judge Junior Division, Malegaon
Judge
2-Jt. CIVIL JUDGE J.D. J.M.F.C.MALEGAON
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kavita Gopal Gunjkar
Adv. BALI VIJAY KESHAV
Aradhya Gopal Gunjkar G A L Mother Kavita
Respondent(s)
Ashok Sakharam Gunjkar Advocate - SHIRSAT SATISH SURESH
Sangita Ashok Gunjkar
Vishal Ashok Gunjkar
Puja Vishal Gunjkar
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt. CIVIL JUDGE J.D. J.M.F.C.MALEGAON
Disposed
Citation
Citation
Citation
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 24-03-2026 | Citation |
| 16-03-2026 | Citation |
| 07-03-2026 | Citation |
| 04-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Kavita Gopal Gunjkar v. Ashok Sakharam Gunjkar (PWDVA 13/2023) The court found the applicant (22-year-old widow) proved domestic violence by her in-laws through unchallenged testimony, including insults about her appearance, post-husband's death demands for ₹2,00,000, and forced removal of her daughter. The court partly allowed the application, granting a protection order and awarding monthly maintenance of ₹3,500 (₹2,500 for applicant, ₹1,000 for minor daughter) from the application date, but rejected claims for ₹10 lakh compensation, residence in the joint family home, and property alienation allegations due to insufficient evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Kavita Gopal Gunjkar v. Ashok Sakharam Gunjkar (PWDVA 13/2023) The court found the applicant (22-year-old widow) proved domestic violence by her in-laws through unchallenged testimony, including insults about her appearance, post-husband's death demands for ₹2,00,000, and forced removal of her daughter. The court partly allowed the application, granting a protection order and awarding monthly maintenance of ₹3,500 (₹2,500 for applicant, ₹1,000 for minor daughter) from the application date, but rejected claims for ₹10 lakh compensation, residence in the joint family home, and property alienation allegations due to insufficient evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts