Lakshmi Suman vs Kailash chand — 264/2024
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 144(2). Disposed: Uncontested--Disposed otherwise on 02nd April 2026.
Cr. Misc. Cases - CR. MISC
CNR: RJBR110007722024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
772/2024
Filing Date
29-07-2024
Registration No
264/2024
Registration Date
29-07-2024
Court
JM Anta Taluka
Judge
1-JM
Decision Date
02nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Disposed otherwise
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Lakshmi Suman
Adv. Mukesh Kumar Suman
Respondent(s)
Kailash chand
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JM
Disposed
Service of Summons/bailable warrant
Service of Summons/bailable warrant
Service of Summons/bailable warrant
Service of Summons/bailable warrant
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | Service of Summons/bailable warrant | |
| 29-01-2026 | Service of Summons/bailable warrant | |
| 08-12-2025 | Service of Summons/bailable warrant | |
| 06-10-2025 | Service of Summons/bailable warrant |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court of Anta, Bara district (Rajasthan) granted interim maintenance of ₹4,000 per month to the petitioner (Lakshmi Suman) against her husband (Kailash Chand) under Section 144(2) of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 2023. The court found that the husband failed to provide adequate maintenance despite having sufficient means, considering the petitioner's economic hardship, her child's needs, and current living costs. The court rejected the respondent's defense, noting his legal and social obligation to support his wife and directed him to pay maintenance from the date of the petition (25-07-2024). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court of Anta, Bara district (Rajasthan) granted interim maintenance of ₹4,000 per month to the petitioner (Lakshmi Suman) against her husband (Kailash Chand) under Section 144(2) of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 2023. The court found that the husband failed to provide adequate maintenance despite having sufficient means, considering the petitioner's economic hardship, her child's needs, and current living costs. The court rejected the respondent's defense, noting his legal and social obligation to support his wife and directed him to pay maintenance from the date of the petition (25-07-2024). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts