{"id":11515,"date":"2007-11-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007"},"modified":"2016-10-15T18:42:24","modified_gmt":"2016-10-15T13:12:24","slug":"amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"Amar Kumar Mahadevan vs Karthiyayini on 28 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Amar Kumar Mahadevan vs Karthiyayini on 28 November, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                     DATED :  28.11.2007\n                              \n                            CORAM\n                              \n           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. MOHAN RAM\n                              \n         CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.32475 of 2007\n                             AND\n                   M.P. Nos.1 and 2 of 2007\n\n\n\n                              \nAmar Kumar Mahadevan                         ... Petitioner\n\n        Vs.\n\nKarthiyayini                                 ... Respondent\n\n\n\n\n\n      Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482  of\n\nthe  Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records\n\nin S.T.C.No.1607 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial\n\nMagistrate No.VI, Coimbatore and quash the proceedings.\n\n\n\n\n          For Petitioner           : Mr. C.S. Dhanasekaran\n\n\n\n\n\n                          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
            The  petitioner  herein  is  the  respondent  in<\/p>\n
STC.No.1607  of  2007  on the file of the  learned  Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore. The respondent herein  is  the<\/p>\n
wife  of the petitioner. The respondent filed an application<\/p>\n
under  Section  12  of  the  The Protection  of  Women  from<\/p>\n
Domestic Violence Act, 2005  (hereinafter referred to as the<\/p>\n
“Act”)  making  certain allegations against  the  petitioner<\/p>\n
herein.  The  said application seems to have been  filed  on<\/p>\n
25.7.2007 and on the same date, the sworn statement has been<\/p>\n
recorded.  The  learned Magistrate being  satisfied  that  a<\/p>\n
prima  facie  case  has  been  made  out,   has  taken   the<\/p>\n
application on file under Section 12 of the Act  and  posted<\/p>\n
the  application to 30.7.2007, directed the issue of summons<\/p>\n
to  the accused\/petitioner herein and also private notice to<\/p>\n
the  petitioner herein. The petitioner has filed  the  above<\/p>\n
criminal  original  petition under Section  482  of  Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
seeking to quash the proceedings in STC.No.1607 of 2007.<\/p>\n
           2.  The contention of the petitioner is that  the<\/p>\n
sworn  statement of the respondent herein was recorded  only<\/p>\n
on  25.7.2007 and the hearing was adjourned to 30.7.2007  in<\/p>\n
gross violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 12(4)<\/p>\n
of  the  Act.  It is further contended that the  service  of<\/p>\n
notice of the date of hearing fixed under Section 12 of  the<\/p>\n
Act is not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under<\/p>\n
Section  13(1) of the Act namely, the notice was not  served<\/p>\n
by  the  Protection  Officer and  private  notice  has  been<\/p>\n
permitted. Further, a declaration of service of notice  made<\/p>\n
by  the Protection Officer has not so far been filed as  per<\/p>\n
the provisions contained under Section 13(2) of the Act.<\/p>\n
           3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further<\/p>\n
contended  that  the  learned  Magistrate  erred  in  taking<\/p>\n
cognizance of the application filed by the respondent herein<\/p>\n
without calling for the report from the Protection Officer.<\/p>\n
           4.  Heard Mr. C.S. Dhanasekaran, learned  counsel<\/p>\n
for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           5.  The learned counsel for the petitioner  while<\/p>\n
reiterating  the  above said contentions put  forth  in  the<\/p>\n
petition submitted that the proceedings pending on the  file<\/p>\n
of  the learned Magistrate are liable to be quashed for  not<\/p>\n
following the mandatory provisions contained in the Act.<\/p>\n
           6.  Before considering the above said contentions<\/p>\n
put  forth by the petitioner, it is necessary to  refer  the<\/p>\n
relevant  provisions of the Act. Sections 12 and 13  of  the<\/p>\n
Act read as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          “12.  Application  to  Magistrate-  (1)   An<\/p>\n
          aggrieved person or a Protection Officer  or<\/p>\n
          any  other person on behalf of the aggrieved<\/p>\n
          person  may  present an application  to  the<\/p>\n
          Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under<\/p>\n
          this Act:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                Provided that before passing any order<\/p>\n
          on  such  application, the Magistrate  shall<\/p>\n
          take   into   consideration   any   domestic<\/p>\n
          incident  report received by  him  from  the<\/p>\n
          Protection Officer or the service provider.<\/p>\n
          (2)  The relief sought for under sub-section<\/p>\n
          (1) may include a relief for issuance of  an<\/p>\n
          order for payment of compensation or damages<\/p>\n
          without  prejudice  to  the  right  of  such<\/p>\n
          person  to institute a suit for compensation<\/p>\n
          or  damages for the injuries caused  by  the<\/p>\n
          acts  of domestic violence committed by  the<\/p>\n
          respondent:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                Provided that where a decree  for  any<\/p>\n
          amount  as compensation or damages has  been<\/p>\n
          passed  by  any  Court  in  favour  of   the<\/p>\n
          aggrieved  person, the amount, if any,  paid<\/p>\n
          or payable in pursuance of the order made by<\/p>\n
          the  Magistrate under this Act shall be  set<\/p>\n
          off  against the amount payable  under  such<\/p>\n
          decree and the decree shall, notwithstanding<\/p>\n
          anything  contained in  the  Code  of  Civil<\/p>\n
          Procedure,  1908 (5 of 1908), or  any  other<\/p>\n
          law   for  the  time  being  in  force,   be<\/p>\n
          executable for the balance amount   if  any,<\/p>\n
          left after such set off.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
               (3) Every application under sub-section<\/p>\n
          (1)  shall be in such form and contain  such<\/p>\n
          particulars  as  may  be  prescribed  or  as<\/p>\n
          nearly as possible thereto.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (4) The Magistrate shall fix the first<\/p>\n
          date  of hearing, which shall not ordinarily<\/p>\n
          be  beyond  three  days  from  the  date  of<\/p>\n
          receipt of the application by the Court.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (5) The Magistrate shall endeavour  to<\/p>\n
          dispose of every application made under sub-<\/p>\n
          section  (1) within a period of  sixty  days<\/p>\n
          from the date of its first hearing.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          13.  Service of notice- (1) A notice of  the<\/p>\n
          date of hearing fixed under section 12 shall<\/p>\n
          be given by the Magistrate to the Protection<\/p>\n
          Officer,  who  shall get it served  by  such<\/p>\n
          means   as   may   be  prescribed   on   the<\/p>\n
          respondent,  and  on any  other  person,  as<\/p>\n
          directed by the Magistrate within a  maximum<\/p>\n
          period   of   two  days  or   such   further<\/p>\n
          reasonable  time as may be  allowed  by  the<\/p>\n
          Magistrate from the date of its receipt.<\/p>\n
          (2)  A declaration of service of notice made<\/p>\n
          by  the  Protection Officer in such form  as<\/p>\n
          may  be  prescribed shall be the proof  that<\/p>\n
          such  notice was served upon the  respondent<\/p>\n
          and  on any other person as directed by  the<\/p>\n
          Magistrate unless the contrary is proved.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           7.  Before making  an endeavour to ascertain the<\/p>\n
purport  and scope of the provisions contained in  Sections<\/p>\n
12  and  13 of the Act, it will be useful to refer  to  the<\/p>\n
objects  in  enacting the above said Act. The statement  of<\/p>\n
objects and reasons reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          “Statement of Objects and Reasons.- Domestic<\/p>\n
          violence is undoubtedly a human rights issue<\/p>\n
          and  serious  deterrent to development.  The<\/p>\n
          Vienna   Accord  of  1994  and  the  Beijing<\/p>\n
          Declaration  and  the  Platform  for  Action<\/p>\n
          (1995)  have acknowledged this.  The  United<\/p>\n
          Nations    Committee   on   Convention    on<\/p>\n
          Elimination  of  All forms of Discrimination<\/p>\n
          Against   Women  (CEDAW)  in   its   General<\/p>\n
          Recommendation No.XII (1989) has recommended<\/p>\n
          that  State  parties should act  to  protect<\/p>\n
          women   against   violence   of   any   kind<\/p>\n
          especially that occurring within the family.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                2. The phenomenon of domestic violence<\/p>\n
          is widely prevalent but has remained largely<\/p>\n
          invisible  in the public domain.  Presently,<\/p>\n
          where a women is subjected to cruelly by her<\/p>\n
          husband  or his relatives, it is an  offence<\/p>\n
          under  section  498-A of  the  Indian  Penal<\/p>\n
          Code. The civil law does not however address<\/p>\n
          this phenomenon in its entirety.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                3. It is, therefore, proposed to enact<\/p>\n
          a  law keeping in view the rights guaranteed<\/p>\n
          under   articles  14,  15  and  21  of   the<\/p>\n
          Constitution  to provide for a remedy  under<\/p>\n
          the  civil law which is intended to  protect<\/p>\n
          the  woman  from being victims  of  domestic<\/p>\n
          violence  and  to prevent the occurrence  of<\/p>\n
          domestic violence in the society.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/p>\n
           8.  In construing the provisions of the Act, the<\/p>\n
Court has to bear in mind that it is a beneficent piece  of<\/p>\n
social  welfare legislation aimed at promoting and securing<\/p>\n
the  well-being of the aggrieved persons and the Court will<\/p>\n
not  adopt  a  narrow interpretation which  will  have  the<\/p>\n
effect of defeating the very object and purpose of the Act.<\/p>\n
It must be interpreted in the spirit in which the same have<\/p>\n
been  enacted accompanied by an anxiety to ensure that  the<\/p>\n
protection  is  not  nullified  by  the  backward   looking<\/p>\n
interpretation which serves to defeat the provision  rather<\/p>\n
than to fulfil its life-aim.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           9. Keeping the above said principles in mind, if<\/p>\n
the  provisions contained in Sections 12 and 13 of the  Act<\/p>\n
are  considered with reference to the contentions put forth<\/p>\n
by  the  learned  counsel  for the petitioner,  this  Court<\/p>\n
without any hesitation comes to a conclusion that the  said<\/p>\n
contentions  put  forth by the counsel for  the  petitioner<\/p>\n
have  to  be rejected at a threshold. A reading of  Section<\/p>\n
12(4)  of the Act shows that the Magistrate shall  fix  the<\/p>\n
first date of hearing, which shall not ordinarily be beyond<\/p>\n
three  days from the date of receipt of the application  by<\/p>\n
the  Court.  Section 12(5) of the Act stipulates  that  the<\/p>\n
Magistrate  shall endeavour to dispose of every application<\/p>\n
made  under  sub-section (1) within a period of sixty  days<\/p>\n
from  the date of its first hearing. Since the Act provides<\/p>\n
for  the disposal of the application filed by the aggrieved<\/p>\n
person  in  a  time bound manner, to achieve  that  object,<\/p>\n
certain  enabling  provisions have been incorporated  under<\/p>\n
Section 13 of the Act.  Section 13 of the Act provides that<\/p>\n
a  notice of the date of hearing fixed under Section 12  of<\/p>\n
the  Act shall be given by the Magistrate to the Protection<\/p>\n
Officer,  who shall get it served by such means as  may  be<\/p>\n
prescribed  on the respondent, and on any other person,  as<\/p>\n
directed by the Magistrate within a maximum period  of  two<\/p>\n
days  or such further reasonable time as may be allowed  by<\/p>\n
the  Magistrate from the date of its receipt. A declaration<\/p>\n
of  service of notice made by the Protection Officer in the<\/p>\n
form set out by the Central Government by rules shall be  a<\/p>\n
proof  of service of notice. Since as per Section 12(5)  of<\/p>\n
the  Act, it is the bounden duty of the Magistrate to  make<\/p>\n
an  endeavour to dispose of the application within a period<\/p>\n
of  sixty  days from the date of its first hearing,  unless<\/p>\n
the  service of notice is completed at the earliest, it may<\/p>\n
not  be  possible to dispose of the application within  the<\/p>\n
above  said stipulated time. Therefore, Section 13  of  the<\/p>\n
Act  provides  for  service  of notice  on  the  respondent<\/p>\n
through  the  Protection Officer and such notice  shall  be<\/p>\n
served  within a maximum period of two days or such further<\/p>\n
reasonable  time  as may be allowed by the  Magistrate.  In<\/p>\n
this context, it will be useful to refer Section 28 of  the<\/p>\n
Act, which  reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          ”  28.  Procedure-  (1) Save  as  otherwise<\/p>\n
          provided in this Act, all proceedings under<\/p>\n
          Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23  and<\/p>\n
          offences under Section 31 shall be governed<\/p>\n
          by  the  provisions of the Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
          Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (2)  Nothing in sub-section (1) shall<\/p>\n
          prevent the Court from laying down its  own<\/p>\n
          procedure  for  disposal of an  application<\/p>\n
          under Section 12 or under subs-section  (2)<\/p>\n
          of Section 23.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/p>\n
           10.  A reading of the above said provision shows<\/p>\n
that  sub-section 2 envisages that the Court may  lay  down<\/p>\n
its own procedure for disposal of an application. Thus,  it<\/p>\n
is  clear  that apart from following the procedure provided<\/p>\n
under  Sections  12 and 13 of the Act, it is  open  to  the<\/p>\n
Magistrate  to  follow its own procedure  for  disposal  of<\/p>\n
applications filed under this Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           11.  It is seen from the diary extract that  the<\/p>\n
complainant  was  present  on  25.7.2007  and   the   sworn<\/p>\n
statement of the respondent had been recorded on  the  same<\/p>\n
day  and  after perusing the records and on being satisfied<\/p>\n
that  a  prima  facie  case  has  been  made,  the  learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate has taken the application on file under  Section<\/p>\n
12  of the Act and posted the application to 30.7.2007. The<\/p>\n
learned  Magistrate has noted that 28th and 29th  of  July,<\/p>\n
2007 happened to be holidays and therefore, has directed to<\/p>\n
issue  summons  to the accused (respondent) on  payment  of<\/p>\n
process   fee  and  also  private  notice  to  the  accused<\/p>\n
(respondent). Thus, it is clear that the learned Magistrate<\/p>\n
was  conscious  of the time limit prescribed under  Section<\/p>\n
12(4)  of the Act. On 30.7.2007, the complainant\/respondent<\/p>\n
herein  was  present  but  the accused\/petitioner  was  not<\/p>\n
present and therefore, summons was ordered  on 1.8.2007. On<\/p>\n
1.8.2007, the complainant\/respondent herein was present but<\/p>\n
the  accused\/petitioner herein was not present and  it  had<\/p>\n
been brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner<\/p>\n
is  working  at  Visakapattinam and at the request  of  the<\/p>\n
counsel  for the respondent herein, notice has been ordered<\/p>\n
to be issued to the Protection Officer and on the next date<\/p>\n
of  hearing was fixed for 10.8.2007. On 10.8.2007,  as  the<\/p>\n
accused\/petitioner  herein was  not  present,  once  again,<\/p>\n
summons  have been directed to be issued to the  petitioner<\/p>\n
and  a  private notice has also been ordered returnable  by<\/p>\n
17.8.2007. On 17.8.2007, the respondent herein was  present<\/p>\n
but  the petitioner herein was absent. The postal cover had<\/p>\n
been  returned  as  “unclaimed”. Hence,  the  non  bailable<\/p>\n
warrant was issued against the petitioner herein returnable<\/p>\n
by  31.8.2007. On 18.8.2007, i.e., the very next  day,  the<\/p>\n
petitioner  had  surrendered before  the  Court  and  on  a<\/p>\n
petition  filed  by  him,  non bailable  warrant  had  been<\/p>\n
cancelled  and the copies have been given to  him  and  had<\/p>\n
been questioned.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           12. From the above said diary extract, it can be<\/p>\n
seen that the learned Magistrate has taken every effort  to<\/p>\n
serve the notice on the petitioner and in fact on 1.8.2007,<\/p>\n
the learned Magistrate has directed the issue of notice  to<\/p>\n
the  Protection  Officer. It further reveals  that  on  the<\/p>\n
first  date  of  hearing namely, 25.7.2007  itself  private<\/p>\n
notice  has  been directed to be issued to  the  petitioner<\/p>\n
herein. Such order directing the issue of private notice to<\/p>\n
the  petitioner  herein cannot be said to  be  against  the<\/p>\n
provisions contained in the Act but it can only be taken to<\/p>\n
be  in consonance with Section 28 of the Act, since Section<\/p>\n
28  of  the Act enables the Magistrate to lay down his  own<\/p>\n
procedure for disposal of the application. By the issue  of<\/p>\n
private  notice to the petitioner, it is not understandable<\/p>\n
as  to  how  the petitioner is prejudiced. If  the  learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate  had  not  directed the service  of  the  notice<\/p>\n
through the Protection Officer, it is the respondent herein<\/p>\n
who should really be the aggrieved person by non-observance<\/p>\n
of  the  provisions contained in Section 12 and Section  13<\/p>\n
(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           13. The declaration of service of notice by  the<\/p>\n
Protection Officer shall be the proof that such notice  was<\/p>\n
served upon the respondent as per Section 13(2) of the Act.<\/p>\n
The absence of such declaration from the Protection Officer<\/p>\n
has  not in any way affected the proceedings pending before<\/p>\n
the  learned Magistrate or it has in any way prejudiced the<\/p>\n
interest  of  the  petitioner  herein.  He  had  admittedly<\/p>\n
appeared   before  the  learned  Magistrate  on  18.8.2007.<\/p>\n
Therefore,  the necessity to file a declaration of  service<\/p>\n
of  notice  by  the  Protection  Officer  has  not  arisen.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel  for  the<\/p>\n
petitioner   is  liable  to  be  rejected  and  accordingly<\/p>\n
rejected.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          14. The proviso to Section 12 of the Act provides<\/p>\n
that  before  passing  any order on the  application  filed<\/p>\n
under  Section 12(1) of the Act, the Magistrate shall  take<\/p>\n
into consideration any domestic incident report received by<\/p>\n
him  from the Protection Officer. In this case, admittedly,<\/p>\n
the  Protection order has not so far been passed and it  is<\/p>\n
yet to be passed. The contention of the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the  petitioner is that the application itself  should  not<\/p>\n
have  been taken cognizance in the absence of the  domestic<\/p>\n
incident  report from the Protection Officer. A reading  of<\/p>\n
Section   12   of  the  Act  does  not  warrant   such   an<\/p>\n
interpretation.  Nowhere, it is provided in  the  Act  that<\/p>\n
even for taking cognizance of the application filed by  the<\/p>\n
aggrieved  person,  the  receipt of the  domestic  incident<\/p>\n
report   from   the  Protection  Officer  is  a   condition<\/p>\n
precedent.   Therefore,  the  contention  of  the   learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner is untenable and does not  merit<\/p>\n
acceptance.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           15. As stated above, this Act being a beneficent<\/p>\n
piece  of legislation enacted for providing minimum  relief<\/p>\n
to  an aggrieved person affected by domestic violence, even<\/p>\n
if  there  is  any minor procedural deviation,  such  minor<\/p>\n
procedural deviation being technical in nature, need not be<\/p>\n
taken  serious note off and on that ground, the proceedings<\/p>\n
pending under the Act cannot be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           17.  In  the considered view of this Court,  the<\/p>\n
above  petition is vexatious  in nature and it  amounts  to<\/p>\n
clear abuse of process of the Court and hence, the same  is<\/p>\n
liable   to   be   dismissed  and  accordingly   dismissed.<\/p>\n
Consequently,  connected miscellaneous petitions  are  also<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
kb<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Amar Kumar Mahadevan vs Karthiyayini on 28 November, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.11.2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. MOHAN RAM CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.32475 of 2007 AND M.P. Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 Amar Kumar Mahadevan … Petitioner Vs. Karthiyayini … Respondent Criminal Original […]<\/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-11515","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAmar Kumar Mahadevan vs Karthiyayini on 28 November, 2007 - 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\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Amar Kumar Mahadevan vs Karthiyayini on 28 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-11-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-15T13:12:24+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Amar Kumar Mahadevan vs Karthiyayini on 28 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-15T13:12:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2508,\"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\\\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007\",\"name\":\"Amar Kumar Mahadevan vs Karthiyayini on 28 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-15T13:12:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Amar Kumar Mahadevan vs Karthiyayini on 28 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Amar Kumar Mahadevan vs Karthiyayini on 28 November, 2007 - 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\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Amar Kumar Mahadevan vs Karthiyayini on 28 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-15T13:12:24+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Amar Kumar Mahadevan vs Karthiyayini on 28 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-15T13:12:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007"},"wordCount":2508,"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\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007","name":"Amar Kumar Mahadevan vs Karthiyayini on 28 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-15T13:12:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amar-kumar-mahadevan-vs-karthiyayini-on-28-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Amar Kumar Mahadevan vs Karthiyayini on 28 November, 2007"}]},{"@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\/11515","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=11515"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11515\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11515"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11515"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11515"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}