{"id":115941,"date":"2010-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010"},"modified":"2016-03-05T23:42:51","modified_gmt":"2016-03-05T18:12:51","slug":"t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"T.Vijayakumar vs Madhavi on 29 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
T.Vijayakumar vs Madhavi on 29 September, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 29\/09\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD)NO.12316 of 2010\nand\nM.P.(MD)NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2010\n\nT.Vijayakumar\t\t\t\t..  Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.Madhavi\n2.State Human Rights Commission-\n     Tamiladu,\n   \"Thiruvarangam\",\n   143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai,\n   Greenways Road,\n   Chennai-28.\n3.The Secretary to Government,\n   Home Department,\n   Fort St. George,\n   Chennai.\n4.The Superintendent of Police,\n   Kanyakumari District,\n   Nagercoil.\t\t\t\t..  Respondents\n\n\tThis writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the\nConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for\nthe records relating to the recommendation of the second respondent in S.H.R.C.\nNo.8024 of 2008, dated 05.04.2010 and the Government Order G.O.(D)No.760, dated\n26.07.2010 accepting the recommendations by the third respondent and the\nconsequential order passed by the fourth respondent in C.No.C3\/21539\/2010, dated\n31.08.2010 and to quash the same.\n\n!For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Joseph Thankaraj\n^For Respondents... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, GA\n\t\t    (Takes notice for RR3 and 4)\n\n- - - -\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe petitioner has come forward to challenge an order of the second
\nrespondent State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu (for short SHRC) in
\nS.H.R.C.No.8024 of 2008, dated 5.4.2010 and the Government order in
\nG.O.(D)No.760, dated 26.07.2010 and the consequential order passed by the fourth
\nrespondent, dated 31.8.2010 and seeks to set aside the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The petitioner is working as a Sub Inspector of Police, Anjugramam
\nPolice Station in Kanyakumari District. The first respondent herein who is the
\nwife of one Simon of Pattanvilai Kavialoore, Kattathurai Post aged 65 years,
\nfiled a complaint with the SHRC complaining about the petitioner in not
\nreceiving her complaint and not taking action on the complaint lodged against
\nculprits responsible for the unlawful and illegal demolition of compound wall of
\nher house. It was stated by her that on 20.08.2008, she noticed her neighbours
\ncame with deadly weapons along with their henchmen and demolished the compound
\nwall standing between her house and that of her neighbours. On the same day
\naround 8.00 a.m., she went to Thakkalay police station to lodge a complaint. Two
\nof the culprits were also present there at that time. The first respondent
\nrequested the petitioner to arrest them. But the petitioner not only refused to
\nreceive her complaint, but also threatened her that he would register a case
\nagainst her. She was asked to immediately go out of the police station.
\nThereafter, she made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari
\nDistrict (R4) and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thakkalay. She also sent
\na petition to the Chief Minister’s grievance cell. Taking the complaint on file,
\nnotice was issued to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The petitioner claimed that on 20.8.2008, he was on bandobust duty at
\nthe bus stand under the supervision of the Inspector of Police, Thakkaly from
\nmorning to evening relating to a road roko launched by the Communist Party
\nworkers at Thukkalay. He was not at all present in the police station. The
\nevidence was recorded by the Commission. The first respondent examined herself
\nand one Sasikumar and four documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.4. The
\npetitioner examined himself on his side and eight documents were marked as
\nExs.R.1 to R.8. The Commission found that he was putting a bald and evasive
\ndenial before it. The petitioner produced some photocopy of documents for the
\nfirst time while standing in the witness  box. He came up with a story that a
\npetition was given by one Murugesan @ Rajan against the first respondent.
\nFurther, a petition was sent by the first respondent against the opposite party
\nby post. Their petitioners were closed as not pressed. The Commission refused to
\nbelieve the story set up by the writ petitioner. The Commission had also found
\nthat the petitioner did not produce original records such as CSR Register, Daily
\nsituation report, pocket note book.  Even the originals of the xerox copies
\nfiled were also not produced before the Commission. The suit about which
\nreference was made (O.S.No.293 of 2008) in which an exparte direction was
\nobtained against the first respondent’s son and the same was done under
\nsuspicious circumstances. Ex.R.3 produced by the petitioner said to have been
\nsigned by the first respondent was not believed as the first respondent herself
\nwas present before the Commission and denied the writing of Ex.R.3. The
\nCommissioner found that the story of alibi given by the petitioner cannot be
\nbelieved. The first respondent was made to run pillar to post even though the
\npetitioner had an obligation to take her complaint, register it and proceed with
\nthe investigation as it had disclosed cognizable offence. Therefore, the
\nCommission, by its order, dated 5.4.2010 recommended as follows:
\n“(i)The Government of Tamilnadu shall pay a sum of Rs.30,000\/- (Rupees Thirty
\nThousands only) by way of compensation to the petitioner namely MADHAVI.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)The Government shall recover the said sum of Rs.30,000\/- (Rupees Thirty
\nThousands only) from the respondent namely Vijayakumar, Sub-Inspector of Police,
\nas per the Rules and Regulations.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)The copy of the order shall be attached with the Personal File\/Service
\nRegister of the respondent.”\n<\/p>\n
A time limit of two months was give for compliance. A copy of the same was
\nmarked to the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu (R3).\n<\/p>\n
\t4.Upon the receipt of the recommendations by the SHRC, the third
\nrespondent Home Secretary called for a report from the Superintendent of Police,
\nKanyakumari District (R4) which was also sent on 09.05.2010. Thereafter, remarks
\nwere also called from the Director General of Police, which was also sent to
\nthem by a communication, dated 25.5.2010. Thereafter, the State Government
\npassed the impugned order in G.O.(D)No.760, Home Department, dated 26.07.2010,
\nwherein the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District (R4) was authorized
\nto draw a sum of Rs.30,000\/- (the sanctioned amount) and to disburse the same to
\nthe first respondent as ordered by the Commission. In paragraphs 4,7 and 8, it
\nwas stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“4.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu is also requested to recover the
\nsum of Rs.30,000\/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) from the salary of
\nThiru.Vijayakumar Sub Inspector of Police on installment basis for the violation
\nof Human Rights and remit the amount in the Government Account under intimation
\nto the Government.\n<\/p>\n
….\n<\/p>\n
7.The Director General of Police Chennai is also directed to attach the order of
\nthe State Human Rights Commission in the reference first read above in the
\nService Register of the respondent Thiru.Vijayakumar Sub Inspector of Police.\n<\/p>\n
8.The Director General of Police is also requested to take disciplinary action
\nagainst the Sub Inspector of Police.”\n<\/p>\n
\t5.Pursuant to the said direction, the fourth respondent paid the said
\namount to the first respondent as ordered by the Commission and also directed
\nRs.30,000\/- to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner in 60 equal
\ninstallments at the rate of Rs.500\/- per month and also to credit it to the
\nGovernment account. The petitioner has come forward to challenge the
\nrecommendations made by the SHRC as well as the Government’s order directing
\nsuch payment and for ordering recovery from his salary and the further action in
\nthis writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The contention of the petitioner was that the findings of the Commission
\nwas mutually contradictory and perverse. He was not in the station from 8.00
\na.m. till 12.00 noon. It was also stated that the entire records were brought to
\nthe Commission at the instance of the petitioner through the officer of the
\npolice station. But only xerox copies were marked through the petitioner. There
\nwas also a civil dispute pending between the first petitioner and her
\nneighbours. The Commission’s order was based on surmises and conjectures. The
\ncomplaint sent by the first respondent was a false complaint. The consequential
\norder of third respondent State was also illegal.\n<\/p>\n
 \t7.However, this court is not inclined to accept the said submission. A
\nperusal of the SHRC’s finding clearly shows that the SHRC had given an
\nopportunity to the writ petitioner as well as the first respondent. The SHRC
\nalso took note of the bald denial made by the petitioner at the first instance.
\nThe documents produced did not inspire the confidence of the SHRC. The
\npetitioner’s attack against the SHRC’s findings is uncharitable to say the
\nleast. The petitioner having harassed the first respondent by not even taking
\nthe complaint sent by the first respondent on file, made the old woman to run
\naround helplessly. If there was a civil dispute as alleged by the petitioner,
\nthen nothing prevented him to give a reply to  the  first respondent after
\nreceiving her complaint. His attempt by producing Ex.R.3 was clearly disproved
\nsince the first respondent who was present before the Commission had disowned
\nit. Having started with bald and evasive  denial, the petitioner attempted to
\nproduce documents which was disbelieved by the Commission. He had also failed to
\nproduce the original documents to the satisfaction of the Commission. This Court
\nis not inclined to interfere with the recommendations of the Commission.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The State Government had consulted both the Director General of Police
\nand the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari before passing the impugned order
\nand had decided to compensate the victim who is the first respondent. Once the
\nState Government had agreed with the recommendations of the Commission and
\ndecided to implement the order, then the Commission’s order is final. In this
\ncase, the petitioner had an opportunity of defending himself before the
\nCommission. Therefore, it does not require any further hearing by the State on
\nthe findings of the Commission. Being a person covered by the Tamil Nadu Police
\nSubordinate Service (D&A) Rules, the loss caused to the State had to be re-
\ncompensated by a Government servant. Since the Government had not ordered for
\nany higher compensation and merely implemented the Commission’s order, the
\nquestion of further hearing the petitioner on the quantum also will not arise.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.Regarding power of the Commission to grant compensation, the Supreme
\nCourt in The Supreme Court in its decision reported in National Human Rights
\nCommission Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and another reported in AIR 1996 SC
\n1234: (1996) 1 SCC 742 emphasised the duty of the State in protecting the life
\nand liberty of human being. The following passage found in paragraph 20 is
\nusefully quoted:\n<\/p>\n
“Para 20: We are a country governed by the Rule of Law. Our Constitution confers
\ncertain rights on every human being and certain other rights on citizens. Every
\nperson is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
\nSo also, no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
\naccording to procedure established by law. Thus the State is bound to protect
\nthe life and liberty of every human being, be he a citizen or otherwise.”\n<\/p>\n
\t10.The power to recover the amount from the delinquent Government servant
\nafter the State compensates a victim is also referred to in the judgment in D.K.
\nBasu v. State of W.B.,<\/a> reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416. In paragraphs 40, 42, 44,45
\nand 54, the Supreme Court had held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“40. Ubi jus, ibi remedium.-There is no wrong without a remedy. The law wills
\nthat in every case where a man is wronged and endamaged he must have a remedy. A
\nmere declaration of invalidity of an action or finding of custodial violence or
\ndeath in lock-up, does not by itself provide any meaningful remedy to a person
\nwhose fundamental right to life has been infringed. Much more needs to be done.
\n……\n<\/p>\n
42.Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
\n1966 (ICCPR) provides that “anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or
\ndetention shall have enforceable right to compensation”. Of course, the
\nGovernment of India at the time of its ratification (of ICCPR) in 1979 and made
\na specific reservation to the effect that the Indian legal system does not
\nrecognise a right to compensation for victims of unlawful arrest or detention
\nand thus did not become a party to the Covenant. That reservation, however, has
\nnow lost its relevance in view of the law laid down by this Court in a number of
\ncases awarding compensation for the infringement of the fundamental right to
\nlife of a citizen. (See with advantage Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar7; Sebastian
\nM. Hongray v. Union of India8<\/a>; Bhim Singh v. State of J&K9; Saheli, A Women’s
\nResources Centre v. Commr. of Police10.) There is indeed no express provision in
\nthe Constitution of India for grant of compensation for violation of a
\nfundamental right to life, nonetheless, this Court has judicially evolved a
\nright to compensation in cases of established unconstitutional deprivation of
\npersonal liberty or life. (See Nilabati Behera v. State2)
\n……\n<\/p>\n
44.The claim in public law for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of
\nfundamental right to life and liberty, the protection of which is guaranteed
\nunder the Constitution, is a claim based on strict liability and is in addition
\nto the claim available in private law for damages for tortious acts of the
\npublic servants. Public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the
\nprivate law proceedings. Award of compensation for established infringement of
\nthe indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a
\nremedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to
\ncivilise public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a
\nlegal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and
\npreserved. Grant of compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or Article 226
\nof the Constitution of India for the established violation of the fundamental
\nrights guaranteed under Article 21, is an exercise of the courts under the
\npublic law jurisdiction for penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability
\nfor the public wrong on the State which failed in the discharge of its public
\nduty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen.\n<\/p>\n
45.The old doctrine of only relegating the aggrieved to the remedies available
\nin civil law limits the role of the courts too much, as the protector and
\ncustodian of the indefeasible rights of the citizens. The courts have the
\nobligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the courts
\nand the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. A
\ncourt of law cannot close its consciousness and aliveness to stark realities.
\nMere punishment of the offender cannot give much solace to the family of the
\nvictim – civil action for damages is a long drawn and a cumbersome judicial
\nprocess. Monetary compensation for redressal by the court finding the
\ninfringement of the indefeasible right to life of the citizen is, therefore,
\nuseful and at time perhaps the only effective remedy to apply balm to the wounds
\nof the family members of the deceased victim, who may have been the breadwinner
\nof the family.\n<\/p>\n
…..\n<\/p>\n
54.Thus, to sum up, it is now a well-accepted proposition in most of the
\njurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and
\nindeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal
\nof the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by
\nthe public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts. The
\nclaim of the citizen is based on the principle of strict liability to which the
\ndefence of sovereign immunity is not available and the citizen must receive the
\namount of compensation from the State, which shall have the right to be
\nindemnified by the wrongdoer. In the assessment of compensation, the emphasis
\nhas to be on the compensatory and not on punitive element. The objective is to
\napply balm to the wounds and not to punish the transgressor or the offender, as
\nawarding appropriate punishment for the offence (irrespective of compensation)
\nmust be left to the criminal courts in which the offender is prosecuted, which
\nthe State, in law, is duty bound to do. The award of compensation in the public
\nlaw jurisdiction is also without prejudice to any other action like civil suit
\nfor damages which is lawfully available to the victim or the heirs of the
\ndeceased victim with respect to the same matter for the tortious act committed
\nby the functionaries of the State. The quantum of compensation will, of course,
\ndepend upon the peculiar facts of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be
\nevolved in that behalf. The relief to redress the wrong for the established
\ninvasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under the public law
\njurisdiction is, thus, in addition to the traditional remedies and not in
\nderogation of them. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Court and paid
\nby the State to redress the wrong done, may in a given case, be adjusted against
\nany amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of damages in a civil
\nsuit.”\t(Emphasis added)<\/p>\n
\t11.When the Commission’s recommendations were accepted by the State, the
\nnatural corollary is that the concerned delinquent Government servant had to
\nabide by the Government order. There is no further scope for challenging the
\norders on grounds which are not germane to the issue on hand.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.This Court vide its judgment in D.Unguswamy and another Vs. The
\nSecretary to Government, Home Department and others reported in
\nMANU\/TN\/7161\/2007 = 2007 (1) TCJ 450 upheld a similar order passed by the
\nCommission and the consequent order of recovery by the Government.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.A division bench of this court presided by A.P.Shah, CJ. (as he then
\nwas) in T.Loganathan Vs. State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu and another
\nreported in 2007 (7) MLJ 1067 had also upheld a similar order passed by the SHRC
\nand implemented by the State.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.Very recently, this court in A.Sundaram and two others Vs. National
\nHuman Rights Commission, New Delhi and three others reported in  2010 (1) TLNJ
\n364 (Criminal) took a similar view.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.But, however a learned judge of this court in Rajesh Das, I.P.S. Vs.
\nTamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission  reported in 2010 (5) CTC 589 has held
\nin paragraph 41 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
41.  To sum up:-\n<\/p>\n
\t(i)What is made under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act  by
\nthe State Human Rights Commission is only a recommendation and it is neither an
\norder nor an adjudication.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii)Such a recommendation made by the State Human Rights Commission is not
\nbinding on the parties to the proceeding, including the Government.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii)But, the Government has an obligation to consider the recommendation
\nof the Commission and to act upon the same to take forward the objects of the
\nHuman Rights Act, the International Covenants and Conventions in the back drop
\nof fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution within a
\nreasonable time.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv)In the event of the Government tentatively deciding to accept the
\nrecommendation of the State Human Rights Commission holding any public servant
\nguilty of human rights violation, the Government shall furnish a copy of the
\nreport of the Commission to the public servant concerned calling upon him to
\nmake his explanation, if any, and then pass an appropriate order either
\naccepting or rejecting the recommendation of the Commission.\n<\/p>\n
\t(v)Until the final order is passed by the Government on the recommendation
\nof the Commission, neither the complainant(s)  nor the respondent (s) in the
\nhuman rights cases can challenge  the recommendation of the commission as it
\nwould be  premature except in exceptional circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi)On the recommendation of the  Human Rights Commission, if the
\nGovernment decides to launch prosecution,  the Government  have to order for
\ninvestigation by police  which will culminate in a final report under Section
\n173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vii)On the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission, if the
\nGovernment decides to pay compensation to the victims of human rights violation,
\nthe Government may do so. But, if the Government proposes to recover the said
\namount from the public servant concerned, it can do so only by initiating
\nappropriate disciplinary proceeding against him under the relevant service
\nrules, if it so empowers the Government.”\n<\/p>\n
\t16.This court is not inclined to agree with the said observation since the
\nsaid judgment did not refer to the previous decisions of the Supreme Court or of
\nthis Court on the very same issue. In the present case, there is no necessity to
\nhear the delinquent officer concerned before accepting the SHRC’s report as the
\nGovernment is bound to give effect to the SHRC’s recommendations. In case of any
\ndifficulty, the SHRC itself can move this court for enforcement of its order
\nunder Section 18(2) for the grant of appropriate direction. Even otherwise, if
\nthe SHRC’s recommendation is accepted by the State Government, the aggrieved
\nindividual will have no locus standi to attack both the Government Order as well
\nas the recommendations of the Commission which was agreed by the appropriate
\nGovernment. By virtue of Section 28(2), the State Government is bound to place
\nthe report of the Commission before the State legislature along with the
\nMemorandum of action taken or proposed to be taken on the recommendation of the
\nCommission. In case of non acceptance of its recommendation, it has to give
\nreasons.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.In the present case, there is no other power with the State Government
\nto repudiate the report of the Commission. On the other hand, the State
\nGovernment had accepted the recommendation of the SHRC. Therefore, it had become
\nbinding. The learned Judge in the Rajesh Das’s case (cited supra) in paragraph
\n41(iv) did not refer to Section 28(2) of the Human Rights Act nor there was any
\nreference to the other decisions under the said Act. Likewise, the findings in
\nparagraph 41(vii), there need not be any disciplinary action to be initiated
\nafresh since the relevant service rule itself provides for the recovery from the
\npay of the Government servant for the loss sustained by the State. It is not a
\ncase of recovery of money due to any penalty imposed  on a Government servant,
\nwherein Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules may come
\ninto operation. On the other hand, the State Human Rights Commission had
\nquantified the compensation and mulcted a vicarious liability on the State.  The
\nState had accepted its liability and had also ordered to recover the amount as
\nheld by the Supreme Court in D.K.Basu case (cited supra).\n<\/p>\n
\t18.If Rajesh Das’s case (cited supra) is accepted, then it will become a
\nparadise of remedies for the delinquent Government servant not once, but three
\ntimes. First before the Commission, second before the State Government which had
\naccepted the Commission’s report and third before any amount were to be
\nrecovered pursuant to acceptance of report of the Commission by the State
\nGovernment. On the other hand, neither the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
\nnor the relevant service rule contemplated such multiple opportunities that too
\nfor a person who had violated law with impugnity. Such undue sympathies or
\nliberal approach on this issue will only further embolden a delinquent
\nGovernment servant to commit further human right violations with impugnity. The
\nconcept of natural justice is not immune from restrictions nor it is an
\ninscrutable concept. It has to be applied to fact situation. It is not clear as
\nto how the petitioner can be said to be aggrieved about the Government order and
\nthe consequent recovery when he had the full opportunity of placing his case
\nbefore the SHRC which is a statutory body mandated to protect the human rights
\nof its citizens.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.In view of the above, the contentions raised by the petitioner are
\nmisconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However,
\nthere will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
\npetitions stand closed.\n<\/p>\n
vvk
\nTo\n<\/p>\n
1.State Human Rights Commission-\n<\/p>\n
     Tamiladu,
\n   “Thiruvarangam”,
\n   143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai,
\n   Greenways Road,
\n   Chennai-28.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Secretary to Government,
\n   Home Department,
\n   Fort St. George,
\n   Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Superintendent of Police,
\n   Kanyakumari District,
\n   Nagercoil.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court T.Vijayakumar vs Madhavi on 29 September, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29\/09\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)NO.12316 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2010 T.Vijayakumar .. Petitioner Vs. 1.Madhavi 2.State Human Rights Commission- Tamiladu, “Thiruvarangam”, 143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Greenways Road, Chennai-28. 3.The Secretary to […]<\/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-115941","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.Vijayakumar vs Madhavi on 29 September, 2010 - 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\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.Vijayakumar vs Madhavi on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-05T18:12:51+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.Vijayakumar vs Madhavi on 29 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-05T18:12:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3824,\"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\\\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010\",\"name\":\"T.Vijayakumar vs Madhavi on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-05T18:12:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.Vijayakumar vs Madhavi on 29 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"T.Vijayakumar vs Madhavi on 29 September, 2010 - 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\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.Vijayakumar vs Madhavi on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-05T18:12:51+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.Vijayakumar vs Madhavi on 29 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-05T18:12:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010"},"wordCount":3824,"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\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010","name":"T.Vijayakumar vs Madhavi on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-05T18:12:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-vijayakumar-vs-madhavi-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.Vijayakumar vs Madhavi on 29 September, 2010"}]},{"@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\/115941","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=115941"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115941\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115941"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115941"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115941"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}