{"id":121056,"date":"2011-01-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011"},"modified":"2018-08-22T21:28:15","modified_gmt":"2018-08-22T15:58:15","slug":"preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Preethi Thomas vs P.A.Thomas on 21 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Preethi Thomas vs P.A.Thomas on 21 January, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.MC.No. 4879 of 2010()\n\n\n1. PREETHI THOMAS, D\/O.M.G.THOMAS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. P.A.THOMAS, S\/O.P.V.ABRAHAM,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. ALEYKUTTY ABRAHAM, S-3,\n\n3. P.M.JOHN,\n\n4. SHRI.M.J.CHERIAN(DIED),\n\n5. P.V.ABRAHAM,\n\n6. M.S.ASOKAN, S\/O.P.G.SANKARAN NAIR,\n\n7. KUTTY MUHAMMED, KANNOKADA HOUSE,\n\n8. GOVINDANKUTTY MENON,\n\n9. BINDU SIVAN, W\/O.SIVAN,\n\n10. STATE OF KERALA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.S.MANU\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :21\/01\/2011\n\n O R D E R\n                  THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.\n\n                 ----------------------------------------\n\n                    Crl.M.C.No.4879 of 2010\n\n                  ---------------------------------------\n\n              Dated this 21st day of January, 2011\n\n                               ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>     Petitioner alleged that accused No.1, making use of a<\/p>\n<p>forged power of attorney as if it is executed by him transferred<\/p>\n<p>properties belonging to his relatives and thereby committed<\/p>\n<p>various offences. Since there were more than one transaction<\/p>\n<p>based on the allegedly forged power of attorney the police<\/p>\n<p>registered two cases and submitted final reports in those cases.<\/p>\n<p>Based on the final reports, learned Judicial First Class<\/p>\n<p>Magistrate-I, Ernakulam took cognizance and filed C.C.Nos.3418<\/p>\n<p>of 2005 and 4190 of 2006.          In C.C.No.3418 of 2005 offences<\/p>\n<p>punishable under Secs.419, 420, 465, 468 and 201 r\/w Sec.34 of<\/p>\n<p>the Indian Penal Code (for short, &#8220;the IPC&#8221;)             are involved. In<\/p>\n<p>C.C.No.4190 of 2006 offences punishable under Secs.420, 465,<\/p>\n<p>468, 201 r\/w Sec.34 of the IPC are involved. Respondent Nos.1,<\/p>\n<p>2 and 5 are the accused in those cases. Dissatisfied with the<\/p>\n<p>manner in which police investigated and chargesheeted those<\/p>\n<p>cases, petitioner filed a private complaint and it was taken on file<\/p>\n<p>as C.C.No.1069 of 2009 against 12 accused including the accused<\/p>\n<p>in the police cases. Of them, one expired and the case against<\/p>\n<p>Crl.M.C.No.4879 of 2010<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                              -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>accused No.2 was quashed as per the order of this court in<\/p>\n<p>Crl.M.C.No.48 of 2010. Accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C.No.1069 of<\/p>\n<p>2009 being public servants, summons was not issued to them. In<\/p>\n<p>C.C.No.1069 of 2009 offences involved are under Secs.109, 120,<\/p>\n<p>120B, 201, 414, 423, 424, 427, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472, 477 and<\/p>\n<p>506 of the IPC. While so, petitioner filed C.M.P.No.1410 of 2010<\/p>\n<p>before the learned Magistrate to order joint trial of the police<\/p>\n<p>cases with the complaint case invoking Sec.210 of the Code of<\/p>\n<p>Criminal Procedure (for short, &#8220;the Code&#8221;). That application was<\/p>\n<p>dismissed by Annexure-A2, order dated August 3, 2010 holding<\/p>\n<p>that the complaint case has to be tried separately. That order is<\/p>\n<p>under challenge. Learned counsel submitted that observations<\/p>\n<p>and findings made by the learned Magistrate in the impugned<\/p>\n<p>order are not correct, these cases are not mutually exclusive or<\/p>\n<p>destructive, nor materially different so that there could be no<\/p>\n<p>joint trial. According to the learned counsel sub section (2) of<\/p>\n<p>Sec.210 of the Code has to be read disjunctively from sub section<\/p>\n<p>(1). Learned counsel submitted that if all the cases are not jointly<\/p>\n<p>tried, evidence which some of the accused in C.C.No.1069 of<\/p>\n<p>2009 (private complaint) may give as prosecution witness in the<\/p>\n<p>police case cannot be used by petitioner in view of Sec.132 of the<\/p>\n<p>Crl.M.C.No.4879 of 2010<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Evidence Act. It is also pointed out by learned counsel that after<\/p>\n<p>examining those persons as witnesses in the prosecution cases,<\/p>\n<p>there is no point in proceeding against them as accused in<\/p>\n<p>C.C.No.1069 of 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.     Sec.210(1) of the Code obviously has no application<\/p>\n<p>since that provision applies only in cases where         in a case<\/p>\n<p>instituted otherwise than on a police report (ie. a complaint<\/p>\n<p>case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate during the course of<\/p>\n<p>the inquiry or trial (of the complaint case), that an investigation<\/p>\n<p>by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the<\/p>\n<p>subject matter of inquiry or trial in the complaint case, the<\/p>\n<p>Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and<\/p>\n<p>call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting<\/p>\n<p>investigation. Argument is that sub section (2) of Sec.210 of the<\/p>\n<p>Code has to be read independently from sub section (1). I am<\/p>\n<p>afraid I cannot give my assent to that argument. Sub section (2)<\/p>\n<p>of Sec.210 relates to the procedure to be followed in the case of<\/p>\n<p>trial of cases falling under subsec. (1) of Sec.210 of the Code.<\/p>\n<p>Sub section (2) has no application to the factual situation<\/p>\n<p>emerging in the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>Crl.M.C.No.4879 of 2010<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      3.    Then the next question is whether invoking Sec.223 of<\/p>\n<p>the Code the complaint case could be tried jointly with the police<\/p>\n<p>cases. That provision states which all persons could be charged<\/p>\n<p>and tried together and enumerates the cases in which such joint<\/p>\n<p>charge and trial are possible. I stated the nature of the offences<\/p>\n<p>involved in the respective cases. Accused Nos.6, 7, 9, 11 and 12<\/p>\n<p>in the complaint case are cited as witnesses for the prosecution<\/p>\n<p>in the police cases. I note that offences attributed in the private<\/p>\n<p>complaint are substantially different from the police cases.<\/p>\n<p>Accused are different, charges are also different. Evidence to be<\/p>\n<p>adduced in the complaint case is different from the police cases.<\/p>\n<p>In such a situation, question is whether the complaint case could<\/p>\n<p>be tried along with the police cases.      This court in Mani v.<\/p>\n<p>Swaminathan (1986 KLT 170) has considered the question and<\/p>\n<p>held that clubbing and consolidation of cases arising on a police<\/p>\n<p>report and complaint where the prosecution version in the police<\/p>\n<p>case    and   the     complaint case    are materially   different,<\/p>\n<p>contradictory and mutually exclusive is not permissible even<\/p>\n<p>under S.223 of the Code. It was held that the two cases should<\/p>\n<p>be tried together by the same court but not consolidated.<\/p>\n<p>Evidence should be recorded in both the cases one after the<\/p>\n<p>Crl.M.C.No.4879 of 2010<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                               -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>other. After recording the prosecution evidence in one case<\/p>\n<p>judgment should be withheld. Then evidence in the other case<\/p>\n<p>has to be recorded. Thereafter both the cases should be<\/p>\n<p>simultaneously disposed of by two separate judgments taking<\/p>\n<p>care that the judgment in one case is not based on the evidence<\/p>\n<p>recorded in the other. In Peter v. Kurian (1994 (1) KLT 17)<\/p>\n<p>referring to the decision in Mani v. Swaminathan (supra) it is<\/p>\n<p>held that if the cases are substantially different from each other,<\/p>\n<p>though the same incident is the basis for both the cases the court<\/p>\n<p>may have to bear in mind possibility of such trial causing<\/p>\n<p>prejudice to the defendants.     <a href=\"\/doc\/1043893\/\">In Samuel Mathai v. State of<\/p>\n<p>Kerala<\/a> (2007 (4) KLT 736) also, it is held that where the<\/p>\n<p>prosecution versions in the police case and complaint case are<\/p>\n<p>materially different, clubbing or consolidation is not permissible.<\/p>\n<p>      4.    In the present case, as I stated some of the accused in<\/p>\n<p>C.C.No.1069 of 2009 (complaint case) figure as witnesses in the<\/p>\n<p>police case and the offences attributed to the accused in<\/p>\n<p>C.C.No.1069 of 2009 also are not the same as involved in the<\/p>\n<p>police cases. If the cases are clubbed and consolidated, there is<\/p>\n<p>the difficulty of some of the accused in the complaint case being<\/p>\n<p>examined as prosecution witnesses in the same trial which is not<\/p>\n<p>Crl.M.C.No.4879 of 2010<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                               -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>permissible under any provision of the Code. I am satisfied that<\/p>\n<p>the cases are substantially different involving different accused<\/p>\n<p>and offences as well and in the circumstance consolidation and<\/p>\n<p>joint trial of the complaint case with the police cases even<\/p>\n<p>invoking Sec.223 of the Code is not permissible. I do not find<\/p>\n<p>reason to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate. But,<\/p>\n<p>as pointed out in Mani v. Swaminathan (supra) police cases<\/p>\n<p>and complaint case are to be tried by the same court, recording<\/p>\n<p>evidence in the police cases and complaint case separately but<\/p>\n<p>are to be disposed of simultaneously though by separate<\/p>\n<p>judgments ensuring the evidence in one case is not used in the<\/p>\n<p>another. Learned Magistrate shall ensure that the procedure<\/p>\n<p>prescribed in Mani v. Swaminathan (supra) is followed.<\/p>\n<p>      With the above direction this criminal miscellaneous case is<\/p>\n<p>dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                             (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)<\/p>\n<p>Sbna\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Preethi Thomas vs P.A.Thomas on 21 January, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 4879 of 2010() 1. PREETHI THOMAS, D\/O.M.G.THOMAS, &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. P.A.THOMAS, S\/O.P.V.ABRAHAM, &#8230; Respondent 2. ALEYKUTTY ABRAHAM, S-3, 3. P.M.JOHN, 4. SHRI.M.J.CHERIAN(DIED), 5. P.V.ABRAHAM, 6. M.S.ASOKAN, S\/O.P.G.SANKARAN NAIR, 7. KUTTY MUHAMMED, KANNOKADA HOUSE, 8. [&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-121056","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>Preethi Thomas vs P.A.Thomas on 21 January, 2011 - 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\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Preethi Thomas vs P.A.Thomas on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-22T15:58:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Preethi Thomas vs P.A.Thomas on 21 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-22T15:58:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1231,\"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\\\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Preethi Thomas vs P.A.Thomas on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-22T15:58:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Preethi Thomas vs P.A.Thomas on 21 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Preethi Thomas vs P.A.Thomas on 21 January, 2011 - 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\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Preethi Thomas vs P.A.Thomas on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-22T15:58:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Preethi Thomas vs P.A.Thomas on 21 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-22T15:58:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011"},"wordCount":1231,"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\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011","name":"Preethi Thomas vs P.A.Thomas on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-22T15:58:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preethi-thomas-vs-p-a-thomas-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Preethi Thomas vs P.A.Thomas on 21 January, 2011"}]},{"@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\/121056","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=121056"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121056\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121056"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121056"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121056"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}