Susmita Mondal vs Dipak Mondal Advocate - PRADIP KUMAR SIKDAR — 123/2023
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 125. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 06th March 2026.
Mr Maintenance - MR case for Maintenance
CNR: WBND090020902023
Filing Number
2090/2023
Filing Date
21-Jul-2023
Registration No
123/2023
Registration Date
21-Jul-2023
Court
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehatta
Judge
7-Jm
Decision Date
06-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED
Last updated 21-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Susmita Mondal
Adv. PRANABESH JOARDER
Respondent(s)
-
1.Dipak Mondal Advocate - PRADIP KUMAR SIKDAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-Mar-2026
Disposed
Jm
-
17-Oct-2025
Evidence
Jm
-
05-Aug-2025
Evidence
Jm
-
06-Feb-2025
Evidence
Jm
-
24-Jul-2024
OrderView PDF
Summary The Judicial Magistrate, Tehatta granted interim maintenance to the petitioner Susmita Mondal under Section 125 CrPC, directing her husband to pay ₹3,000 per month (₹2,000 for herself and ₹1,000 for their minor child), reduced from her claimed ₹30,000, considering the cost of living and the husband's financial capacity. The court found sufficient grounds at the interim stage to provide relief despite contested facts, with the final merits to be determined during evidence proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Jul-2024
Evidence
Jm
-
21-May-2024
Show Cause
Jm
-
11-Mar-2024
OrderView PDF
-
11-Mar-2024
Show Cause
Jm
-
11-Jan-2024
Show Cause
Jm
-
12-Dec-2023
OrderView PDF
-
12-Dec-2023
Hearing
Jm
-
27-Jul-2023
OrderView PDF
-
27-Jul-2023
Sr/Ad/Appearence
Jm
-
21-Jul-2023
OrderView PDF
-
21-Jul-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
21-Jul-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 123/2023
Summary The Judicial Magistrate, Tehatta granted interim maintenance to the petitioner Susmita Mondal under Section 125 CrPC, directing her husband to pay ₹3,000 per month (₹2,000 for herself and ₹1,000 for their minor child), reduced from her claimed ₹30,000, considering the cost of living and the husband's financial capacity. The court found sufficient grounds at the interim stage to provide relief despite contested facts, with the final merits to be determined during evidence proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts