{"id":127472,"date":"2010-04-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010"},"modified":"2018-03-04T03:49:27","modified_gmt":"2018-03-03T22:19:27","slug":"appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Appearance vs Notice Served For on 8 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Appearance vs Notice Served For on 8 April, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A.L.Dave,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCR.A\/83\/1989\t 2\/ 6\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 83 of 1989\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nBIBI\nSULTAN SAIYAD ABED SAIYAD \n\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMAHAMMADALI\nNAKIALI HAIDER MIRZA &amp; 1 \n\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nHN JOSHI for MR PM THAKKAR\nfor\npetitioner. \nNOTICE SERVED for Respondent : 1, \nMR M.R.MENGDEY,\nADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent :\n2, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 08\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis<br \/>\nis a petition  under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the<br \/>\npetitioner to challenge the order passed by the Sessions Court, Kheda<br \/>\nat Nadiad, on 18.11.1987, in Criminal Revision Application<br \/>\nNo. 102\/1987 filed by the petitioner to challenge the order passed by<br \/>\nthe Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khambhat, in Criminal Misc.<br \/>\nApplication No. 9\/1987 below Exh.4, on 26.5.1987.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner-wife had filed an application under Section 125 of the<br \/>\nCode of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance against the<br \/>\nrespondent. The Magisterial Court awarded maintenance and later on<br \/>\nthe petitioner preferred an application being Criminal Misc.<br \/>\nApplication No.9\/1987 under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C for recovery of<br \/>\nRs.1740\/- from the respondent. In that application, the<br \/>\nrespondent-husband gave an application Exh.4, inter alia, contending<br \/>\nthat the petitioner is the divorced wife of the respondent and by<br \/>\nvirtue of the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Muslim Women<br \/>\n(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 [ the Act of 1986<br \/>\nfor short], she is not entitled to maintenance. The learned<br \/>\nMagistrate accepted the said contention and held that the petitioner<br \/>\nis not entitled to recover any maintenance from the respondent and is<br \/>\nalso not entitled to file an application under Section 125(3) of<br \/>\nCr.P.C for recovery of amount of maintenance in future. The learned<br \/>\nMagistrate also held that the petitioner is entitled to claim<br \/>\nmaintenance from her relatives and\/or Wakf Board, if they do not pay.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe<br \/>\nSessions Court by judgment and order dated 18.11.1987 dismissed the<br \/>\ncriminal revision application and upheld the view taken by the<br \/>\nMagisterial Court. Hence, this petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned advocate Mr. Joshi for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.<br \/>\nMr.Mengdey for the State. The respondent-husband, though served, has<br \/>\nchosen not to appear before the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tA<br \/>\nquestion that arises in this  petition is, whether a divorced muslim<br \/>\nwoman can claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure ? The Courts below have taken a consistent view that a<br \/>\ndivorced muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.<br \/>\nHence, this petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tLearned<br \/>\nAdvocate Mr.Joshi for the petitioner submitted that both the Courts<br \/>\nbelow erred in holding that the petitioner being a divorced muslim<br \/>\nwomen is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C,<br \/>\nin view of various decisions of this Hon&#8217;ble High Court as well as<br \/>\nthe Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court on this point.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tIn<br \/>\nthis context, reference may be made to a decision of this Court in<br \/>\nthe case of Arab Ahmedbin Abdulla v. Arab Bail Mohmuna<br \/>\nSaiyadbhai &amp; Anr, reported in 1988(1) GLR 452, where this<br \/>\nCourt held that  Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act,<br \/>\n1986, does not say that the husband is liable to pay maintenance to<br \/>\nthe divorced wife only during the period of `Iddat&#8217;. The liability<br \/>\nlasts so long as the woman does not remarry and so long as she is in<br \/>\nneed of maintenance. The Court observed that the Act does not purport<br \/>\nto nullify the Supreme Court decision in Shah Bano&#8217;s case (AIR 1985<br \/>\nSC 945). Ultimately, the Court took a view that there is no provision<br \/>\nin 1986 Act, which nullifies the orders passed by the Magistrate<br \/>\nunder Sections 125 &amp; 127 Cr.P.C ordering the husband to pay<br \/>\nmaintenance to a divorced muslim woman or takes away the vested<br \/>\nrights which are crystalized by the order passed under section 125 or<br \/>\nsection 127 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.1\t\tSubsequently,<br \/>\na Full Bench of this Court in Special Criminal Application No. 83 of<br \/>\n1989 and allied matters in Bibi Sultan Saiyad Abed Saiyad &amp; Ors.<br \/>\nv. Mahammadali Nakiali Haider Mirza &amp; Ors., by order dated<br \/>\n3.4.1998 took a view that if there are conflicting decisions of other<br \/>\nCourts, the Courts in Gujarat should follow the decision in the case<br \/>\nof Arab Ahmedbin Abdulla v. Arab<br \/>\nBail Mohmuna Saiyadbhai &amp; Anr, reported in 1988(1) GLR 452,<\/p>\n<p>7.2\t\tThis<br \/>\nCourt again in the case of Mumtazben Jusabbhai v. Mahebubkhan<br \/>\nUsmankhan Pathan &amp; Anr, 1999(1) GLR 609, took a view that<br \/>\nin spite of the enactment of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on<br \/>\nDivorce) Act, 1986,  criminal courts do not cease to have powers to<br \/>\naward maintenance to muslim women even after divorce.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.3\t\tAgain,<br \/>\nin the case of Sahinda Abdulla Nathalwala v.<br \/>\nState of Gujarat, (2001)2 GLR 1646, the Court said that if<br \/>\nduring the pendency of application for maintenance under Section 125<br \/>\nof Cr.P.C., the husband gives divorce to the applicant-wife, an order<br \/>\npassed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C by the Magistrate would be legal<br \/>\nand would survive.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.4\t\tAgain,<br \/>\nin IQBAL BANO v. STATE OF U.P. and Anr., (2007)6 SCC 785,<br \/>\nthe Apex Court took a view that the Muslim Women (Protection of<br \/>\nRights on Divorce) Act, 1986 applies only to divorced muslim women<br \/>\nand not to the women who are not divorced, and since the proceedings<br \/>\nunder Section 125 Cr.P.C  and the 1986 Act are tried before the same<br \/>\nCourt and given the beneficial nature of the 1986 Act, even if a<br \/>\ndivorced muslim woman applies under Section 125 Cr.P.C, it is open to<br \/>\nthe Court to treat it as an application under the 1986 Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.5\t\tLastly,<br \/>\nby a decision in the case of Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan,<br \/>\n2010(1) GLR 223, the dispute is now set at rest, wherein,<br \/>\nafter considering various decisions, the Apex Court took a view that<br \/>\neven a divorced woman would be entitled to claim maintenance from her<br \/>\ndivorced husband, as long as she does not remarry, and this being a<br \/>\nbeneficial piece of legislation, the benefit thereof must accrue to<br \/>\nthe divorced muslim woman. The Court also crystallized the right of<br \/>\ndivorced muslim women by observing that eve if a muslim woman has<br \/>\nbeen divorced, she would be entitled to claim maintenance from her<br \/>\nhusband under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., after the expiry of period<br \/>\nof iddat also, so long as she does not remarry.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIn<br \/>\nthe light of the above development of law, both the Courts below<br \/>\nerred in holding that the petitioner being a divorced muslim woman is<br \/>\nnot entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The<br \/>\npetition, therefore, deserves to be accepted and the orders passed by<br \/>\nboth the Courts below deserve to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tThe<br \/>\npetition is allowed. The order dated 26.5.1987 passed by the learned<br \/>\nJ.M.F.C.Khambhat below Exh.4 in Criminal Misc. Application No.9\/1987<br \/>\nas also the order dated 18.11.1987 passed by the Sessions Court,<br \/>\nKheda at Nadiad dismissing Criminal Revision Application No.102\/1987,<br \/>\nare hereby set aside. The learned J.M.F.C. Khambhat is directed to<br \/>\nproceed with Criminal Misc. Application No.9\/1987 preferred under<br \/>\nSection 125(3) of Cr.P.C in accordance with law and shall also<br \/>\nentertain  similar applications if preferred by the petitioner.<br \/>\nRule is made absolute accordingly. Interim relief, if any, shall<br \/>\nstand vacated. R &amp; P, if called for, shall be sent back to the<br \/>\nCourt below.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[A.L.Dave,J.]<\/p>\n<p>(patel)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Appearance vs Notice Served For on 8 April, 2010 Author: A.L.Dave,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCR.A\/83\/1989 2\/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 83 of 1989 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-127472","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Appearance vs Notice Served For on 8 April, 2010 - 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\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Appearance vs Notice Served For on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-03T22:19:27+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\\\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Appearance vs Notice Served For on 8 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-03T22:19:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1147,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Appearance vs Notice Served For on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-03T22:19:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Appearance vs Notice Served For on 8 April, 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":"Appearance vs Notice Served For on 8 April, 2010 - 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\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Appearance vs Notice Served For on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-03T22:19:27+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\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Appearance vs Notice Served For on 8 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-03T22:19:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010"},"wordCount":1147,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010","name":"Appearance vs Notice Served For on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-03T22:19:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-notice-served-for-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Appearance vs Notice Served For on 8 April, 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\/127472","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=127472"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127472\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=127472"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=127472"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=127472"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}