Sheik Mohamed Ali vs Mohamed Pathu — 81/2025
Case under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 29. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 05th June 2026.
CRLA - Criminal Appeal
CNR: TNTL010056342025
e-Filing Number
05-07-2025
Filing Number
3848/2025
Filing Date
09-07-2025
Registration No
81/2025
Registration Date
01-11-2025
Court
Principal District Court, Tirunelveli
Judge
2-I-Additional District Judge
Decision Date
05th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
FIR Details
Police Station
Melapalayam P.S.,
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sheik Mohamed Ali
Adv. M Muthuraj
Respondent(s)
Mohamed Pathu
Hearing History
Judge: 2-I-Additional District Judge
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-06-2026 | Disposed |
| 29-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 21-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 10-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 07-04-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Sheik Mohamed Ali v. Mohamed Pathu (C.A. 81/2025) The appellate court dismissed Sheik Mohamed Ali's appeal and confirmed the trial court's maintenance order under the Domestic Violence Act. The respondent (Mohamed Pathu) must pay Rs. 1,83,000 for children's educational expenses within two months and Rs. 4,000 monthly to his wife plus Rs. 2,500 each to three minor children on the 5th of each month. The court held that the husband has a legal responsibility to maintain his family according to his living status, rejecting his contentions about income limitations and document authenticity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Sheik Mohamed Ali v. Mohamed Pathu (C.A. 81/2025) The appellate court dismissed Sheik Mohamed Ali's appeal and confirmed the trial court's maintenance order under the Domestic Violence Act. The respondent (Mohamed Pathu) must pay Rs. 1,83,000 for children's educational expenses within two months and Rs. 4,000 monthly to his wife plus Rs. 2,500 each to three minor children on the 5th of each month. The court held that the husband has a legal responsibility to maintain his family according to his living status, rejecting his contentions about income limitations and document authenticity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts