{"id":111690,"date":"2009-02-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009"},"modified":"2015-09-25T06:09:59","modified_gmt":"2015-09-25T00:39:59","slug":"machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Machicheri Koyamu vs Kizhakkethil Ayisha on 13 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Machicheri Koyamu vs Kizhakkethil Ayisha on 13 February, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.MC.No. 3315 of 2003(D)\n\n\n1. MACHICHERI KOYAMU, S\/O. MOIDEEN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KIZHAKKETHIL AYISHA, D\/O. ALAVI,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.SAMSUDIN\n\nThe Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI\n\n Dated :13\/02\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                         M.C.HARI RANI, J.\n        -----------------------------------------------------\n                 CRL.M.C.No.3315 OF 2003\n      -----------------------------------------------------\n      DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY , 2009\n\n                               O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      The petitioner in this petition is the counter petitioner in<\/p>\n
M.C.No.8\/2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s<\/p>\n
Court-I, Manjeri. That M.C. was filed by the first respondent herein<\/p>\n
who filed a petition under Section 3(1) of the Muslim Women<\/p>\n
(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The allegation in that<\/p>\n
petition as revealed from the statement of facts stated in this<\/p>\n
petition is that the petitioner herein married the first respondent<\/p>\n
about 40 years back.           After the marriage, the petitioner<\/p>\n
misappropriated gold ornaments, wooden cots, etc. and the first<\/p>\n
respondent was divorced by the petitioner on 5.9.1999. About 10<\/p>\n
months before 5.9.1999, she was sent out of the house by the<\/p>\n
petitioner. Accordingly, the first respondent as the wife claimed<\/p>\n
Rs.6,000\/- towards iddat and Rs.1 lakh towards Matah and also<\/p>\n
claimed Rs.33,000\/- towards value of gold ornaments.              The<\/p>\n
allegations in that petition filed by the first respondent herein was<\/p>\n
disputed by the petitioner who filed a counter statement wherein<\/p>\n
the petitioner has denied the pronouncement of Talaq and also the<\/p>\n
income of the petitioner as stated in the petition at the rate of<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.No.3315\/03                      -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.8,000\/- per month. It was also contended that the first respondent is<\/p>\n
not the divorced wife and is not entitled to get any amount under Section<\/p>\n
3(1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act.<\/p>\n
Misappropriation of gold ornaments alleged against the petitioner was<\/p>\n
also disputed. According to the petitioner, the first respondent deserted<\/p>\n
him and left the company of the petitioner and for that reason he has<\/p>\n
married again and prayed for dismissal of the petition.<\/p>\n
     2.    PWs 1 to 4 were examined on the side of the petitioner and<\/p>\n
Exhibits P1 and P2 were marked. On the side of the counter petitioner in<\/p>\n
the M.C., Rws 1 and 2 were examined and Exhibit R1 was marked.<\/p>\n
Considering the oral testimony of the witnesses and the documents<\/p>\n
produced at the instance of the petitioner and the counter petitioner in<\/p>\n
the M.C., the learned Magistrate has passed an order dated 14.11.2002,<\/p>\n
whereby the petition was allowed in part. The respondent in the M.C.<\/p>\n
was directed to pay an amount of Rs.30,000\/- to the petitioner as Matah<\/p>\n
and Rs.1,500\/- as maintenance during idath period at the rate of<\/p>\n
Rs.500\/- per month. The prayer for realisation of Rs.33,000\/- towards<\/p>\n
misappropriation of gold ornaments by the respondent was rejected.<\/p>\n
     3.    Aggrieved by the finding in the M.C., the petitioner preferred<\/p>\n
criminal revision petition before the Court of Sessions Judge, Manjeri and<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.No.3315\/03                       -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
as per order dated 24.2.2003, the learned Sessions Judge has<\/p>\n
reappreciated the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, and<\/p>\n
came to the conclusion that the finding of the learned Magistrate was<\/p>\n
with sufficient reasonings and on the basis of the evidence adduced by<\/p>\n
both parties and that finding was not illegal. Accordingly, the revision<\/p>\n
petition preferred by the counter petitioner in the M.C. was dismissed.<\/p>\n
Subsequently, this petition was filed by the petitioner herein, who is the<\/p>\n
counter petitioner-respondent in the M.C. with the prayer to set aside<\/p>\n
Annexures A and B, the orders in M.C.No.8\/2000 dated 14.11.2002 and<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.50\/02 dated 24.2.2003 passed by the          Judicial First Class<\/p>\n
Magistrate Court-I, Manjeri and Sessions Court, Manjeri respectively.<\/p>\n
      4.    Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and<\/p>\n
also the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
petitioner that the petitioner herein is aged 78 years and that he has not<\/p>\n
divorced the first respondent on 5.9.1999 as alleged in the M.C. and for<\/p>\n
that reason, the first respondent is not entitled to get any amount under<\/p>\n
Section 3(1) of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act.<\/p>\n
According to the learned counsel, the first respondent was deserting the<\/p>\n
petitioner for several years and the petitioner has not misappropriated<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.No.3315\/03                       -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
any of the gold ornaments of the first respondent.            Therefore, the<\/p>\n
concurrent finding of both the lower courts that there was valid Talaq<\/p>\n
and hence the first respondent was entitled to get a total amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.31,500\/- under the heads Matah and iddat are incorrect and are liable<\/p>\n
to   be set aside.    According to the learned counsel,        no sufficient<\/p>\n
evidence was adduced from the side of the first respondent herein to<\/p>\n
prove that there was valid Talaq or divorce. The learned counsel relied<\/p>\n
on the decision reported in Ummer Farooque v. Naseema<\/a> (2005(4)<\/p>\n
KLT 565).\n<\/p>\n
      6.    The prayer in this petition is opposed by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the first respondent. According to the learned counsel of<\/p>\n
the first respondent, both courts below have appreciated the evidence of<\/p>\n
the witnesses and though there were some minor discrepancies in their<\/p>\n
versions, it did not affect the veracity or credibility of the witnesses and<\/p>\n
their versions were accepted to come to the conclusion that there was<\/p>\n
valid divorce and Talaq was already pronounced by the petitioner herein<\/p>\n
and the first respondent was found entitled for getting the amount as<\/p>\n
ordered by both the courts concurrently. Further, no reappreciation of<\/p>\n
evidence is possible     under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by invoking the<\/p>\n
inherent jurisdiction of this Court for which the learned counsel has relied<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.No.3315\/03                      -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
on the decision reported in Rajathi v. C.Ganesan<\/a> (1999 (6) SCC<\/p>\n
326).\n<\/p>\n
      7.    The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has read the<\/p>\n
evidence of PWs 1 to 4 as a whole. The evidence tendered by PW2 and<\/p>\n
the document marked as Exhibit P2 as such were not relied on by the<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate as revealed from the impugned order Annexure A.<\/p>\n
But, in the light of the evidence adduced by PWs 3 and 4 regarding the<\/p>\n
pronouncement of Talaq by RW1, it was found that the evidence of PW2<\/p>\n
also can be relied on to some extent.        Considering the subsequent<\/p>\n
conduct of the petitioner herein, it can be seen that the petitioner has<\/p>\n
not even raised his little finger and no attempt has been made to bring<\/p>\n
the wife, the first respondent herein, who according to him has deserted<\/p>\n
him for months together. Instead of that, he married another lady and is<\/p>\n
now living with that newly wedded wife and has also got a child in that<\/p>\n
wedlock. Considering the conduct of the petitioner and also the<\/p>\n
testimonies of PWs 1 to 4 together and also the evidence tendered by<\/p>\n
RWs 1 and 2, the       learned Magistrate and also the learned Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge came to the conclusion that the first respondent herein as the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s divorced wife, against whom proper Talaq was pronounced by<\/p>\n
the petitioner herein, was found entitled to get an amount of Rs.30,000\/-<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.No.3315\/03                        -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
as Matah and a total amount of Rs.1,500\/- as maintenance during idath<\/p>\n
period at the rate of Rs.500\/- per month. The decision relied on by<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner reported in Ummer Farooque v.<\/p>\n
Naseema<\/a> (2005(4)KLT 565) is not applicable to the facts of this case<\/p>\n
and that decision was held in a case where maintenance under Section<\/p>\n
125 was claimed by a wife. Absolutely, nothing has been shown to exist<\/p>\n
for this Court to invoke the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to<\/p>\n
interfere with the concurrent finding of the courts below.<\/p>\n
      8.   Considering the facts and circumstances in this case, I find<\/p>\n
that there is no illegality or irregularity in the concurrent finding of both<\/p>\n
the courts and interference with the impugned order by invoking the<\/p>\n
powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. at the instance of the petitioner is<\/p>\n
totally unnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
      In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                          M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
dsn<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Machicheri Koyamu vs Kizhakkethil Ayisha on 13 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 3315 of 2003(D) 1. MACHICHERI KOYAMU, S\/O. MOIDEEN, … Petitioner Vs 1. KIZHAKKETHIL AYISHA, D\/O. ALAVI, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON For Respondent :SRI.P.SAMSUDIN The Hon’ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-111690","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMachicheri Koyamu vs Kizhakkethil Ayisha on 13 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Machicheri Koyamu vs Kizhakkethil Ayisha on 13 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-25T00:39:59+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Machicheri Koyamu vs Kizhakkethil Ayisha on 13 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-25T00:39:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1286,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Machicheri Koyamu vs Kizhakkethil Ayisha on 13 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-25T00:39:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Machicheri Koyamu vs Kizhakkethil Ayisha on 13 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Machicheri Koyamu vs Kizhakkethil Ayisha on 13 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Machicheri Koyamu vs Kizhakkethil Ayisha on 13 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-25T00:39:59+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Machicheri Koyamu vs Kizhakkethil Ayisha on 13 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-25T00:39:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009"},"wordCount":1286,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009","name":"Machicheri Koyamu vs Kizhakkethil Ayisha on 13 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-25T00:39:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/machicheri-koyamu-vs-kizhakkethil-ayisha-on-13-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Machicheri Koyamu vs Kizhakkethil Ayisha on 13 February, 2009"}]},{"@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\/111690","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=111690"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111690\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111690"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=111690"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=111690"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}