{"id":12440,"date":"2008-09-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008"},"modified":"2014-02-05T20:46:19","modified_gmt":"2014-02-05T15:16:19","slug":"krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Krishnankutty vs Vineeth on 1 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Krishnankutty vs Vineeth on 1 September, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRPFC.No. 24 of 2004()\n\n\n1. KRISHNANKUTTY, S\/O.MOOTHORAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. VINEETH, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :01\/09\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                          R. BASANT, J.\n            -------------------------------------------------\n                   R.P.(FC) No. 24 of 2004\n            -------------------------------------------------\n        Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008\n\n                               ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
      The petitioner in this case assails an order passed under<\/p>\n
Sec.125 Cr.P.C. by the Family Court obliging him to pay<\/p>\n
maintenance at the rate of Rs.250\/- per mensem to the 2nd<\/p>\n
claimant – allegedly his child, from the date of the petition i.e.,<\/p>\n
7\/5\/96. The 1st claimant is the mother of the 2nd claimant. She<\/p>\n
claimed maintenance for herself and her child from the<\/p>\n
petitioner at the rate of Rs.500\/- each per mensem.<\/p>\n
      2. There was no contention that there was any valid<\/p>\n
marriage.   It was contended that the petitioner and the 1st<\/p>\n
claimant were neighbours and that they had intimacy.            The<\/p>\n
petitioner promising to marry the 1st claimant had started<\/p>\n
residing in the house of the 1st claimant and they had sexual<\/p>\n
intercourse.   In such relationship, the 2nd claimant was born.<\/p>\n
 R.P.(FC) No. 24 of 2004 -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Initially, the relationship went well; but later, there were<\/p>\n
disagreements and the petitioner allegedly went away.       Long<\/p>\n
later, the present claim under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. was filed.<\/p>\n
      3. The petitioner denied the allegations and averments in<\/p>\n
the complaint.    According to him, he had no relationship with<\/p>\n
the claimant.\n<\/p>\n
      4.  Parties went to trial on these contentions.     The 1st<\/p>\n
claimant\/wife examined herself as P.W.1. She proved Exts.A1<\/p>\n
and A2.    The petitioner examined himself as R.W.1.     No other<\/p>\n
evidence was adduced.\n<\/p>\n
      5. The court below, on an anxious consideration of all the<\/p>\n
rival contentions, came to the conclusion that the evidence of<\/p>\n
P.W.1 could be safely accepted and acted upon.       In coming to<\/p>\n
this conclusion, the learned Judge of the Family Court took note<\/p>\n
of Ext.A2 – extract of the birth certificate, which showed that as<\/p>\n
early as on 10\/6\/92, about 4 years prior to the initiation of this<\/p>\n
claim, the name of the petitioner was shown as father of the<\/p>\n
child born to P.W.1. The court below, in these circumstances,<\/p>\n
came to the conclusion that it was safe to accept and act upon<\/p>\n
the oral evidence of P.W.1.        Accordingly, the court below<\/p>\n
proceeded to pass the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
 R.P.(FC) No. 24 of 2004 -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
      6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced<\/p>\n
arguments.      There is no appearance for the respondent. The<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the<\/p>\n
pleadings, evidence and the impugned order. The short question<\/p>\n
that arises for determination is whether the conclusion of the<\/p>\n
court below warrants revisional interference.<\/p>\n
      7. At the outset, I must take note of the nature, quality and<\/p>\n
contours of the jurisdiction of this Court sitting as a court of<\/p>\n
revision.   It is by now trite that unless the findings of fact are<\/p>\n
grossly erroneous or perverse and such findings result in failure\/<\/p>\n
miscarriage of justice, a court of revision must be slow to invoke<\/p>\n
its revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction.<\/p>\n
      8.  In the instant case, the crucial dispute is about the<\/p>\n
paternity of the 2nd claimant. The evidence clearly shows that at<\/p>\n
the time when the 2nd claimant was conceived by the 1st claimant,<\/p>\n
there was possibility of access between the petitioner and the 1st<\/p>\n
claimant.   The petitioner did not advance any reason as to why<\/p>\n
the 1st claimant was staking a false claim against him. She had<\/p>\n
earlier been married to another person on the strength of an<\/p>\n
agreement executed by her; but the same relationship was<\/p>\n
brought to termination by Anneuxre-A1 agreement.         One child<\/p>\n
R.P.(FC) No. 24 of 2004 -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
had been born in the said relationship.       The petitioner in the<\/p>\n
counter statement did not raise any contention to explain why<\/p>\n
the 1st claimant was staking such an allegedly false claim against<\/p>\n
him.     However, in the course of evidence, he attempted to<\/p>\n
advance a contention that the 1st claimant had requested him to<\/p>\n
own the paternity of the 2nd claimant so that she can stake a<\/p>\n
claim for benefits arising from the status of the child as the child<\/p>\n
of a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community to<\/p>\n
which the petitioner belonged.         It is significant that this<\/p>\n
explanation was not advanced at the earlier stage of filing the<\/p>\n
counter statement.\n<\/p>\n
      9. The evident advantage which a trial court has in the<\/p>\n
matter of appreciation of evidence cannot also be lost sight of by<\/p>\n
a superior court.    An alert trial Judge makes perceptions which<\/p>\n
are crucialy vital in the appreciation of evidence. The preference<\/p>\n
given by the trial court to the evidence of the 1st claimant as<\/p>\n
P.W.1 must, in these circumstances, be realistically considered.<\/p>\n
Of course, there was no attempt to get the D.N.A. test conducted<\/p>\n
to resolve the dispute regarding paternity of the child. In the<\/p>\n
final analysis the better quality of evidence tendered by P.W.1,<\/p>\n
the absence of any explanation on the part of the petitioner to<\/p>\n
R.P.(FC) No. 24 of 2004 -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
explain why P.W.1 was staking false claim against him, as also<\/p>\n
the document – Ext.A2 which had come into existence at a point<\/p>\n
of time when no dispute was existing between the parties are,<\/p>\n
according to me, sufficient indications to tilt the scales in favour<\/p>\n
of the claimant.   At any rate, I am not persuaded to agree that<\/p>\n
the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction can<\/p>\n
or ought to invoked to interfere with the finding.<\/p>\n
     10. I am conscious of the predicament of a person against<\/p>\n
whom allegations of paternity are raised by a divorcee who<\/p>\n
already has a child. I am cognizant of the burden of<\/p>\n
responsibility on an unwed mother (a divorcee already having a<\/p>\n
child in the instant case) who points out an individual as the<\/p>\n
father of the illegitimate child born to her.   But I note that the<\/p>\n
court below had strained to test the veracity of the oral evidence<\/p>\n
of P.W.1 and R.W.1 and has chosen, on the basis of the<\/p>\n
circumstances rendered above, particularly Annexure-A2 to<\/p>\n
prefer to accept the oral evidence of P.W.1. I do not find any<\/p>\n
compelling reasons to disagree with that conclusion.            The<\/p>\n
course adopted by the court below appears to be cogent,<\/p>\n
reasonable, just and fair. The petitioner had not offered to get a<\/p>\n
DNA test conducted to resolve the controversy and to a specific<\/p>\n
R.P.(FC) No. 24 of 2004 -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
query by this   Court the response is that the petitioner is<\/p>\n
unwilling to undergo the test.\n<\/p>\n
     11. I am, in these circumstances, of opinion that this RP<\/p>\n
(FC) does not deserve to be allowed. This RP(FC) is accordingly<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                     (R. BASANT, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
Nan\/<\/p>\n
R.P.(FC) No. 24 of 2004 -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                R. BASANT, J.\n<\/p>\n
                    ————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
                                  R.P.(FC) No. 24 of 2004\n<\/p>\n
                    ————————————————-
\n              Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008<\/p>\n
                                                          ORDER<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Krishnankutty vs Vineeth on 1 September, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RPFC.No. 24 of 2004() 1. KRISHNANKUTTY, S\/O.MOOTHORAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. VINEETH, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice R.BASANT Dated :01\/09\/2008 O R D […]<\/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-12440","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKrishnankutty vs Vineeth on 1 September, 2008 - 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\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Krishnankutty vs Vineeth on 1 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-05T15:16:19+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Krishnankutty vs Vineeth on 1 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-05T15:16:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1117,\"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\\\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Krishnankutty vs Vineeth on 1 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-05T15:16:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Krishnankutty vs Vineeth on 1 September, 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":"Krishnankutty vs Vineeth on 1 September, 2008 - 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\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Krishnankutty vs Vineeth on 1 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-05T15:16:19+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Krishnankutty vs Vineeth on 1 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-05T15:16:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008"},"wordCount":1117,"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\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008","name":"Krishnankutty vs Vineeth on 1 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-05T15:16:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnankutty-vs-vineeth-on-1-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Krishnankutty vs Vineeth on 1 September, 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\/12440","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=12440"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12440\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}