{"id":106218,"date":"2003-01-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-01-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003"},"modified":"2016-11-14T09:18:31","modified_gmt":"2016-11-14T03:48:31","slug":"kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003","title":{"rendered":"Kalyanam vs Ramesh on 24 January, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kalyanam vs Ramesh on 24 January, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 24\/01\/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM\n\nCRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.11401 of 2001\nand\nCrl.M.P.Nos.3710 and 3711  of 2001\n\nKalyanam                                       ..Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\nRamesh                                         ..Respondent\n\n\n        Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.    to  call\nfor  the  records  and  quash  the  proceedings in C.C.No.6796 of 2000 pending\nbefore XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.\n\n!For Petitioner :  Mr.  K.P.  Anantha Krishna\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.  C.L.  Shaji\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>        Kalyanam, who worked as  Private  Secretary  to  Mahatma  Gandhi,  the<br \/>\nFather of our Nation, for about four years, having aggrieved over the issuance<br \/>\nof  process  against  him  in  the private complaint filed by one Ramesh under<br \/>\nSection 500 I.P.C., has approac this Court through this petition under Section<br \/>\n482 Cr.P.C.  seeking for quashing of the above said proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  The respondent filed a complaint against the  petitioner  and  the<br \/>\nEditor of  The  New  Indian Express under Section 500 I.P.C.  stating that The<br \/>\nNew Indian Express published an  article  carrying  the  title  as  &#8220;Mahatma&#8217;s<br \/>\nSecretary  seeks  peace&#8221;  at the inst of the first accused Kalyanam containing<br \/>\nthe imputation indicating that the Mahatma&#8217;s Secretary is struggling for peace<br \/>\nfrom the hands of the hands of the complainant  and  since  the  said  article<br \/>\ncontaining the imputation published in The New Indian Expre ss dated 13.4.2000<br \/>\nwould  harm  the reputation of the complainant, both the accused are liable to<br \/>\nbe punished for the offence of defamation under Section 500 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  This private complaint was  taken  on  file  on  19.10.2000  after<br \/>\nrecording  sworn  statement from the complainant and the process was issued to<br \/>\nboth Kalyanam (A1), the petitioner, and the Editor of The New  Indian  Express<br \/>\n(A2).   In  the sworn statement, complainant stated that on 13.4.2000, The New<br \/>\nIndian Express published an article captioned as  &#8220;Mahatma&#8217;s  Secretary  seeks<br \/>\npeace&#8221; containing imputation to harm the reputation of the complainant, who is<br \/>\nthe member of several Clubs, and his wife and the pub lication was made at the<br \/>\ninstigation of A1.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   The  main  point  which  has  been  urged  by the counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner before this Court is that there  is  no  details  of  the  averment<br \/>\neither  in  the  complaint  or  in  the  sworn statement with reference to the<br \/>\nimputation which was said to be contained he  article  published  in  The  New<br \/>\nIndian  Express  dated  13.4.2000 and as such, the complaint does not indicate<br \/>\nany ingredient for the offence under  Section  500  I.P.C.    and  hence,  the<br \/>\nproceedings  arising  out  of the said private complaint are liable to be quas<br \/>\nhed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  I heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  I have gone through the complaint and the sworn statement.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  Both in the complaint and in the sworn  statement,  it  is  merely<br \/>\nmentioned that the article published in The New Indian Express dated 13.4.2000<br \/>\nat  the  instigation  of  A1  would harm the reputation of the complainant and<br \/>\nhence, both the accused are li to be punished.   However,  no  particulars  of<br \/>\nimputation have been given both in complaint and in sworn statement indicating<br \/>\nthe imputation which would attract the ingredient of Section 500 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   It  is settled law that a person cannot be said to have committed<br \/>\nan offence under Section 500 I.P.C.  merely because some article or news  item<br \/>\nis published  attributing  certain  utterances  to  that person.  Unless it is<br \/>\nshown that the imputation or o tionable words had been used by the accused and<br \/>\nonly at his instance, the said objectionable words were published, the accused<br \/>\ncannot be prima facie said to have  committed  the  offence  punishable  under<br \/>\nSection 500 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.   In a trial for defamation, it is quite essential that the details<br \/>\nof imputation containing the words  alleged  to  be  defamatory  in  character<br \/>\nshould be  precisely  set  out in the complaint.  It is the said imputation or<br \/>\nthe words so set out in the com nt that will  constitute  the  foundation  for<br \/>\ndefamation.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  In a defamation case, the only document containing the accusation<br \/>\nof offences  supplied to the accused is the complaint.  By issuance of process<br \/>\nto the accused, he is called upon to answer the  accusation  relating  to  the<br \/>\nimputation containing  defa  on  mentioned  in the complaint.  In other words,<br \/>\ncause of action is the accusation with  reference  to  the  imputation  alone.<br \/>\nWhat  is  required  further  is  only  adducing evidence by the complainant in<br \/>\nsupport of those accusations.  Therefore, the accused in  en  titled  to  know<br \/>\nwhat are the accusations with regard to the imputation made against him.  Then<br \/>\nonly he will be able to answer the accusations and shape his defence.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.  It cannot be said that the accused may be aware of the imputation<br \/>\nbecause of  the  publication  of the same through the newspaper.  But, that is<br \/>\nnot the question here.  It is required by law that from the complaint  itself,<br \/>\nthe accused is entitled now what are the accusations which formed the basis of<br \/>\nthe complaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.   When a similar question was raised before the Supreme Court in a<br \/>\ndefamation case, the Supreme Court would hold in BALRAJ  KHANNA  v.    MOTIRAM<br \/>\n(1971 S.C.C.(Cri.)647) in the following words:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;The  purpose  or  object will be served if the complainant is able to<br \/>\nreproduce in his complaint or evidence in a substantial measure the  words  of<br \/>\nimputation alleged  to  have  been  uttered.    If the statements or the words<br \/>\nplaced before the Court by the lainant are held to be not defamatory, it  will<br \/>\nmean that the complainant will have to lose.  Therefore, it is to his interest<br \/>\nto  get a proper adjudication from the Court that as far as possible the words<br \/>\nspoken or the statements actually made and which h e alleges to be  defamatory<br \/>\nare before the  Court.    &#8230;    From  the point of view of accused also it is<br \/>\nnecessary that the matters alleged to be defamatory in the complaint  must  be<br \/>\nso  stated as to enable the accused to know the nature of the allegations that<br \/>\nt hey have to meet.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.  Following the above judgment,  the  Kerala  High  Court  also  in<br \/>\nKONATH MADHAVI AMMA v.  S.M.  SHERIEF (1985 CRI.L.J.1496) has held that in the<br \/>\nabsence  of  the  imputation  constituting  the  offence  of defamation in the<br \/>\ncomplaint, the Court cannot enter the complaint  on  defamation  as  the  mere<br \/>\nallegations  contained  in  the  complaint  without  imputation  would  not be<br \/>\nsufficient for the accused as he is entitled to know about the  imputation  to<br \/>\nface the charge.\n<\/p>\n<p>        14.   The  very same principles have been laid down in LALOO PRASAD v.<br \/>\nSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER (1997(2) Crimes 498  Patna  H.C.).    Further,  the<br \/>\nSupreme Court  in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1386753\/\">SHATRUGHNA  PRASAD  SINHA  v.  RAJBHAU SURAJMAL RATHI<\/a> (1997<br \/>\nCRI.L.J.212) and this Court i KARTHIKEYAN v.  S.    ANANTHANARAYANAN  (1998(1)<\/p>\n<p>Crimes 44) would hold that in the absence of necessary averment containing the<br \/>\nimputation  constituting the ingredient of defamation, the complaint could not<br \/>\nbe said to be valid in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>        15.  In the light of the above principles, if we look at the  contents<br \/>\nof the complaint, it is clear that the complainant merely mentioned that he is<br \/>\na  tenant  under  the  petitioner  and  has been regularly paying the rent and<br \/>\ndespite that, the publicatio s made by the  New  Indian  Express,  the  second<br \/>\naccused  at  the  instance  of  the  first  accused,  the landlord, containing<br \/>\ndefamatory and false particulars.  Thus, it is clear that there are  no  basic<br \/>\nrequirements  in the complaint as the ingredient for defamati on under Section<br \/>\n500 I.P.C.    through  the  alleged  imputation  are  clearly  absent  in  the<br \/>\ncomplaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>        16.   The  trial  Court  during  enquiry  under  Section  200  Cr.P.C.<br \/>\nexamined the complainant only and recorded his sworn statement.  Even  in  his<br \/>\nsworn  statement,  he  would  simply  refer  to the article without giving any<br \/>\ndetails of the imputation through the al words or at least the contents of the<br \/>\nsame.  Despite this, the trial Court has taken the case on file under  Section<br \/>\n500 I.P.C.    and issued process against both the petitioner and the Editor of<br \/>\nthe New Indian Express.\n<\/p>\n<p>        17.  It is salutary to note that the judicial process should not be an<br \/>\ninstrument of oppression or needless harassment.   There  lies  responsibility<br \/>\nand  duty  on  the  Magistracy to find whether the concerned accused should be<br \/>\nlegally responsible for the o ce charged for.  Only on satisfying that the law<br \/>\ncasts liability or creates offence against the person, then only process would<br \/>\nbe issued.  At that stage, the Court would be  circumspect  and  judicious  in<br \/>\nexercising   discretion   and   should  take  all  the  relev  ant  facts  and<br \/>\ncircumstances into consideration before issuing process, otherwise it would be<br \/>\nan instrument in the hands of the private complaint as vendetta to harass  the<br \/>\nperson needlessly.    Vindication of majesty of justice and maintenance of law<br \/>\nand or der in the society are the prime objects of  criminal  justice  but  it<br \/>\nshould not be allowed to use those means to wreak personal vengeance.\n<\/p>\n<p>        18.   According  to  the  complainant, the publication was made in the<br \/>\nnewspaper only at the instance of the first accused,  the  petitioner  herein.<br \/>\nThe caption given in the article is &#8220;Mahatma&#8217;s Secretary seeks peace&#8221;.  Due to<br \/>\nfiling  of  the private compla in which process was issued to the accused, the<br \/>\npetitioner is now constrained to  continue  to  seek  peace  and  for  justice<br \/>\nthrough this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        19.  To put it differently, the facts set out in the complaint seeking<br \/>\nfor punishment  under  Section  500  I.P.C.  without giving the particulars of<br \/>\nimputation dragging the landlord and the Editor of the newspaper to the  Court<br \/>\nof  Law  would  eloquently  man t on its face, a clear abuse of process of the<br \/>\nCourt to harass the petitioner and the Editor of the newspaper.\n<\/p>\n<p>        20.  In view of what is stated above, the entire  proceedings  arising<br \/>\nout of the private complaint filed by the respondent against both the accused,<br \/>\nnamely  the petitioner and the Editor of the New Indian Express, are liable to<br \/>\nbe quashed.  Even though  the  Editor  of  the  New  Indian  Express  has  not<br \/>\napproached  this  Court  seeking  for quashing of the proceedings, I am of the<br \/>\nview that the reasonings for quashing the proceedings against A1  would  apply<br \/>\nto A2  as well.  Accordingly, the impugned proceedings ini tiated against both<br \/>\nthe accused  are  quashed  and  the  petition  is  allowed.      Consequently,<br \/>\nCrl.M.P.Nos.3710 and 3711 of 2001 are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<br \/>\nmam<br \/>\nTo\n<\/p>\n<p>1) The XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2) -do- the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Kalyanam vs Ramesh on 24 January, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 24\/01\/2003 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.11401 of 2001 and Crl.M.P.Nos.3710 and 3711 of 2001 Kalyanam ..Petitioner -Vs- Ramesh ..Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-106218","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kalyanam vs Ramesh on 24 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kalyanam vs Ramesh on 24 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-14T03:48:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kalyanam vs Ramesh on 24 January, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-14T03:48:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1659,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003\",\"name\":\"Kalyanam vs Ramesh on 24 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-14T03:48:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kalyanam vs Ramesh on 24 January, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kalyanam vs Ramesh on 24 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kalyanam vs Ramesh on 24 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-14T03:48:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kalyanam vs Ramesh on 24 January, 2003","datePublished":"2003-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-14T03:48:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003"},"wordCount":1659,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003","name":"Kalyanam vs Ramesh on 24 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-14T03:48:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyanam-vs-ramesh-on-24-january-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kalyanam vs Ramesh on 24 January, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106218","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=106218"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106218\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106218"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106218"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106218"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}