{"id":115705,"date":"2008-01-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008"},"modified":"2014-12-02T01:29:08","modified_gmt":"2014-12-01T19:59:08","slug":"noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008","title":{"rendered":"Noufal.E. vs E.Pakker on 30 January, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Noufal.E. vs E.Pakker on 30 January, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRP(Family Court) No. 16 of 2008()\n\n\n1. NOUFAL.E., D\/O.PAKKER, AGED 27,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. E.PAKKER, S\/O.PAREEKKUTTY, AGED 60,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. NASHIDA.E., D\/O.PAKKER E, AGED 32,\n\n3. RASHEEDA.E., D\/O.PAKKER.E., AGED 29,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :30\/01\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                              R. BASANT, J.\n\n\n              ````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n\n                      R.P.(F.C.) No. 16 OF 2008\n\n              ````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n\n             Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008\n\n\n                                 O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>              This revision petition is directed against a direction<\/p>\n<p>under   section   125   Cr.P.C.   to   the   petitioner   to   pay<\/p>\n<p>maintenance   at   the   rate   of   Rs.1,000\/-   per   month   to   the<\/p>\n<p>claimant,   his   father.     The   relationship   is   admitted.     That   the<\/p>\n<p>claimant   father   is   a   retired   police   official   is   also   admitted.<\/p>\n<p>That he gets a monthly pension of Rs.1,941\/- is also admitted.<\/p>\n<p>That   he   has   a   liability   to   pay   an   amount   of   Rs.500\/-   to   his<\/p>\n<p>wife, the Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner herein, is<\/p>\n<p>also  not   disputed.    The  claimant   father   contended   that   he  is<\/p>\n<p>unable   to   maintain   himself   with   the   meagre   pension   that   he<\/p>\n<p>gets and that his child even having sufficient means must be<\/p>\n<p>directed to pay maintenance to him.   The claimant examined<\/p>\n<p>himself   as   PW1   and   proved   Exts.A1   to   A4.     The   petitioner,<\/p>\n<p>who   had   entered   appearance   and   conducted   the   case<\/p>\n<p>R.P.F.C.No.16\/08<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n<p>through   his   Power   of   Attorney   holder   &#8211;   his   mother,   did   not<\/p>\n<p>adduce any evidence.  The learned Judge of the Family Court<\/p>\n<p>came to the conclusion that the claimant is unable to maintain<\/p>\n<p>himself   and   the   petitioner   having   sufficient   means   has   the<\/p>\n<p>liability  to pay  maintenance   to his father.  The  other  children,<\/p>\n<p>the sisters of the petitioner, who were only housewives, were<\/p>\n<p>found   to   be   having   no   sufficient   means.   Accordingly,   a<\/p>\n<p>direction   was   issued   to   pay   an   amount   of   Rs.1,000\/-   per<\/p>\n<p>month to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.     The   petitioner   claims   to   be   aggrieved   by   the<\/p>\n<p>impugned   order.     What   is   the   grievance?     The   learned<\/p>\n<p>counsel  for the petitioner  assails the impugned order on  two<\/p>\n<p>specific grounds.  He first of all contends that there is nothing<\/p>\n<p>to   show   that   the   claimant   is   a   person   unable   to   maintain<\/p>\n<p>himself.     Secondly,   the   petitioner   contends   that   there   is<\/p>\n<p>nothing to show that the petitioner herein is a person having<\/p>\n<p>sufficient   means.     Thirdly,   the   petitioner   contends   that   the<\/p>\n<p>quantum of maintenance deserves to be reduced.<\/p>\n<p>R.P.F.C.No.16\/08<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      3.     Admittedly,   the   claimant   is   receiving   a   monthly<\/p>\n<p>pension of Rs.1,941\/-.  He is bound under law to pay Rs.500\/-<\/p>\n<p>per   month   to   his   wife.     The   question   is   whether   the   person<\/p>\n<p>getting   Rs.1,941\/-   by   way   of   pension   can   be   said   to   be   a<\/p>\n<p>person   unable   to   maintain   himself.     He   admittedly   has   the<\/p>\n<p>liability to pay an amount of Rs.500\/- to his wife.  PW1 states<\/p>\n<p>that he is unable to maintain himself.  I do not find any reason<\/p>\n<p>to come to a conclusion that the petitioner is a person unable<\/p>\n<p>to maintain himself.   To keep body and soul it is evident that<\/p>\n<p>the amount of Rs.1,441\/- may not be sufficient. Moreover, the<\/p>\n<p>ability   to   maintain   must   be   gauged   and   judged   by   the<\/p>\n<p>standard of life which the parties are used to.  The claimant is<\/p>\n<p>a retired police official. The petitioner herein is a person who<\/p>\n<p>is allegedly employed abroad. Taking all these circumstances<\/p>\n<p>into   account,   I   am   unable   to   find   any   vice   vitiating   the<\/p>\n<p>impugned   finding   that   the   claimant   is   a   person   unable   to<\/p>\n<p>maintain himself.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      4.     The   next   question   is   whether   the   petitioner   is<\/p>\n<p>R.P.F.C.No.16\/08<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n<p>having sufficient means.  Admittedly, he is now abroad.  He is<\/p>\n<p>a person  aged 27 years.   He has a family of his own.     The<\/p>\n<p>court   below   did   not   commit   any   error   warranting   revisional<\/p>\n<p>interference  in taking the view that the petitioner is a person<\/p>\n<p>having   employment   abroad   and   consequently   sufficient<\/p>\n<p>means.  The said finding also does not warrant interference.<\/p>\n<p>       5.    Finally,   the   prayer   is   only   that   the   quantum   of<\/p>\n<p>maintenance   may   be   reduced.                   In   the   facts   and<\/p>\n<p>circumstances, considering the needs of the claimant and the<\/p>\n<p>means   of   the   petitioner   herein,   I   am   not   satisfied   that   the<\/p>\n<p>quantum   of   maintenance   fixed   does   deserve   to   be   reduced<\/p>\n<p>in revision.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>       6.    It follows that the impugned order does not warrant<\/p>\n<p>revisional   interference.     The   challenge   fails.     This   revision<\/p>\n<p>petition is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                      (R.BASANT, JUDGE)<\/p>\n<p>aks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Noufal.E. vs E.Pakker on 30 January, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RP(Family Court) No. 16 of 2008() 1. NOUFAL.E., D\/O.PAKKER, AGED 27, &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. E.PAKKER, S\/O.PAREEKKUTTY, AGED 60, &#8230; Respondent 2. NASHIDA.E., D\/O.PAKKER E, AGED 32, 3. RASHEEDA.E., D\/O.PAKKER.E., AGED 29, For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS For [&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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-115705","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Noufal.E. vs E.Pakker on 30 January, 2008 - 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\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Noufal.E. vs E.Pakker on 30 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-01T19:59:08+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=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Noufal.E. vs E.Pakker on 30 January, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-01T19:59:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008\"},\"wordCount\":658,\"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\\\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008\",\"name\":\"Noufal.E. vs E.Pakker on 30 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-01T19:59:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Noufal.E. vs E.Pakker on 30 January, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Noufal.E. vs E.Pakker on 30 January, 2008 - 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\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Noufal.E. vs E.Pakker on 30 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-01T19:59:08+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":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Noufal.E. vs E.Pakker on 30 January, 2008","datePublished":"2008-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-01T19:59:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008"},"wordCount":658,"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\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008","name":"Noufal.E. vs E.Pakker on 30 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-01T19:59:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noufal-e-vs-e-pakker-on-30-january-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Noufal.E. vs E.Pakker on 30 January, 2008"}]},{"@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\/115705","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=115705"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115705\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115705"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115705"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115705"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}