{"id":141053,"date":"2009-04-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009"},"modified":"2018-03-06T17:27:08","modified_gmt":"2018-03-06T11:57:08","slug":"sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sant Kumar vs Neera Bai on 30 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sant Kumar vs Neera Bai on 30 April, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n             HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n\n\n\n\n             Misc  Criminal Case No 2828 of 2001\n\n\n\n\n                     Sant  Kumar\n                               ...Petitioners\n\n\n                           Versus\n\n\n\n                  1.  Neera  Bai\n\n                   2.  Ku.  Uma\n\n                   3.  Pappu\n                           ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n   {Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal\n                      Procedure, 1973}\n\n!     Mr. M.D. Sharma, counsel for the applicant\n\n\n\n^     Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, counsel for the non-applicants\n\n\n\nHonble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J \n\n\n\n       Dated:30\/04\/2009\n\n\n\n:       Judgment\n\n                            ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>                (Passed on 30th April, 2009)<\/p>\n<p>1.   By this petition for invoking inherent jurisdiction, the<br \/>\n  applicant has challenged legality &amp; propriety of the  order<br \/>\n  dated 1-10-2001 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,<br \/>\n  Baloda Bazaar in Criminal Revision No.280\/2001, affirming the<br \/>\n  order dated 11-5-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First<br \/>\n  Class,   Baloda  Bazaar  in  Miscellaneous  Criminal   Case<br \/>\n  No.107\/95,  whereby  both  the Courts  below  have  awarded<br \/>\n  maintenance  under  Section 125 of  the  Code  of  Criminal<br \/>\n  Procedure, 1973 (for short `the Code&#8217;) to non-applicant No.3<br \/>\n  Pappu.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.    The  order  is challenged on the ground that  Pappu  is<br \/>\n  neither  legitimate  child nor illegitimate  child  of  the<br \/>\n  applicant and has begotten &amp; born after non-applicant  No.1<br \/>\n  left  the  matrimonial  house i.e.  the  residence  of  the<br \/>\n  applicant  and  there was no occasion of physical  relation<br \/>\n  between the applicant &amp; non-applicant No.1.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused<br \/>\nthe petition and the orders impugned.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.    Vide  order  dated  11-5-2001 passed  in  Miscellaneous<br \/>\n  Criminal Case No.107\/95, the Judicial Magistrate First Class,<br \/>\n  Baloda Bazaar has awarded maintenance to the non-applicants<br \/>\n  under Section 125 of the Code.  The applicant, who is father<br \/>\n  of non-applicants No.2 &amp; 3 and husband of non-applicant No.1,<br \/>\n  has  not challenged the order awarding maintenance to  non-<br \/>\n  applicants No.1 &amp; 2, but has challenged the order  awarding<br \/>\n  maintenance to non-applicant No.3.  After appreciating  the<br \/>\n  evidence  available on record, learned Judicial  Magistrate<br \/>\n  First Class has awarded maintenance to all the non-applicants<br \/>\n  and the same was affirmed in criminal revision.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.    Learned  counsel for the applicant submitted that  non-<br \/>\n  applicant  No.1 gave birth to non-applicant No.3 after  two<br \/>\n  years of leaving the house of the applicant and there was no<br \/>\n  occasion for any physical relation between the applicant  &amp;<br \/>\n  non-applicant No.1.  Non-applicant No.1 herself has admitted<br \/>\n  in  her  evidence recorded on 7-1-97 that she had left  the<br \/>\n  house of the applicant two years before her statement,  and<br \/>\n  the birth certificate of non-applicant No.3 shows that non-<br \/>\n  applicant  No.3  was born on 18-11-95.  The  applicant  has<br \/>\n  specifically made allegation in his reply that non-applicant<br \/>\n  No.3 is not legitimate or illegitimate child of the applicant<br \/>\n  and he is not liable for maintenance to non-applicant No.3.<br \/>\n  However, the non-applicants have not adduced any evidence to<br \/>\n  establish that non-applicant No.3 is the legitimate child of<br \/>\n  the  applicant  and even after leaving  the  house  of  the<br \/>\n  applicant  by  non-applicant No.1 there was opportunity  of<br \/>\n  access to each other at the time of alleged pregnancy of non-<br \/>\n  applicant  No.1  in relation to the birth of  non-applicant<br \/>\n  No.3.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.    On  the  other  hand,  learned  counsel  for  the  non-<br \/>\n  applicants  opposed  the petition and  submitted  that  the<br \/>\n  applicant  &amp; non-applicant No.1 are legally wedded  wife  &amp;<br \/>\n  husband, non-applicant No.2 is daughter of the applicant and<br \/>\n  non-applicant  No.3 is son of the applicant.  Non-applicant<br \/>\n  No.3 came into existence and born during the subsistence of<br \/>\n  marriage  of the applicant &amp; non-applicant No.1.  There  is<br \/>\n  presumption that non-applicant No.3 is legitimate child  of<br \/>\n  the  applicant in accordance with Section 112 of the Indian<br \/>\n  Evidence Act, 1872.  Learned counsel further submitted that<br \/>\n  this  is  a summary proceeding to save minor children  from<br \/>\n  destitution and vagrancy and the applicant may avail remedy<br \/>\n  before  the  competent civil Court, however,  he  is  under<br \/>\n  obligation to maintain non-applicant No.3.  Learned counsel<br \/>\n  placed  reliance  in the matter of <a href=\"\/doc\/503124\/\">Smt.  Dukhtar  Jahan  v.<br \/>\n  Mohammed Farooq1<\/a> in which the Apex Court has held that child<br \/>\n  born within 7 months&#8217; time after marriage is not sufficient<br \/>\n  for  raising  any presumption that child is not legitimate,<br \/>\n  refusal of maintenance to such child is not proper.  Learned<br \/>\n  counsel  also  submitted that at the time of reply  to  the<br \/>\n  application  filed  under Section  125  of  the  Code,  the<br \/>\n  applicant has specifically admitted the allegation relating<br \/>\n  to  paternity of non-applicant No.3 in para 3 of his reply,<br \/>\n  but subsequently after lapse of three years on 20-7-99, the<br \/>\n  applicant  has  amended his reply and made allegation  that<br \/>\nprobably  Pappu  @  Munna (non-applicant  No.3)  is  not  the<br \/>\n  legitimate or illegitimate son of the applicant, even after<br \/>\n  recording  of the evidence of non-applicant No.1 on  7-1-97<br \/>\n  i.e. after 2 + years and no opportunity to rebut the same has<br \/>\n  been given to non-applicant No.1.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.    This  is  a petition under Section 482 of the Code  for<br \/>\n  quashment  of  maintenance awarded to  non-applicant  No.3.<br \/>\n  Though the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code exists<br \/>\n  and is wide in its scope, but it is a rule of practice that<br \/>\n  it will only be exercised in exceptional cases.  The powers<br \/>\n  under Section 482 of the Code are to be exercised sparingly<br \/>\n  and  not as an appellate\/revisional Court.  In the case  of<br \/>\n  Arun  Shankar  Shukla v. State of U.P.2 the  Supreme  Court<br \/>\n  observed:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;It  is  true that under Section 482  of  the<br \/>\n          Code,  the High Court has inherent powers  to<br \/>\n          make  such orders as may be necessary to give<br \/>\n          effect  to  any order under the  Code  or  to<br \/>\n          prevent the abuse of process of any Court  or<br \/>\n          otherwise to secure the ends of justice.  But<br \/>\n          the expressions &#8220;abuse of the process of law&#8221;<br \/>\n          or  &#8220;to  secure the ends of justice&#8221;  do  not<br \/>\n          confer  unlimited jurisdiction  on  the  High<br \/>\n          Court and the alleged abuse of the process of<br \/>\n          law  or  the  ends of justice could  only  be<br \/>\n          secured  in  accordance  with  law  including<br \/>\n          procedural  law and not otherwise.   Further,<br \/>\n          inherent   powers  are  in  the   nature   of<br \/>\n          extraordinary powers to be used sparingly for<br \/>\n          achieving the object mentioned in Section 482<br \/>\n          of  the  Code  in  cases where  there  is  no<br \/>\n          express  provision empowering the High  Court<br \/>\n          to achieve the said object.  It is well neigh<br \/>\n          settled  that  inherent power is  not  to  be<br \/>\n          invoked  in respect of any matter covered  by<br \/>\n          specific  provisions of the Code  or  if  its<br \/>\n          exercise    would   infringe   any   specific<br \/>\n          provision of the Code.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>8.    In  the instant case, copy of the petition filed  under<br \/>\n  Section 125 of the Code and its reply shows that maintenance<br \/>\n  for  non-applicant No.3 was claimed on the basis that  non-<br \/>\n  applicant  No.3  is the legitimate child of the  applicant.<br \/>\n  Contents of para 3 of the application of the non-applicants<br \/>\n  relating to paternity of non-applicant No.3 was admitted by<br \/>\n  the applicant in para 3 of his reply dated 29-6-96, but after<br \/>\n  the statement of non-applicant No.1 the present applicant has<br \/>\n  amended his reply and additional allegation has been made as<br \/>\n  para  3  (a) wherein it has been alleged that non-applicant<br \/>\n  No.3 is not the son of the applicant and he was born during<br \/>\n  the  course of adulterous  life of non-applicant No.1.  The<br \/>\n  present  applicant has amended his reply on  20-7-99  after<br \/>\n  three  years  of his filing reply.  Averments  relating  to<br \/>\n  paternity  in the application filed on behalf of  the  non-<br \/>\napplicants are as follows: &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;3@   ;g  fd  vukosnd  lardqekj  ds  rjQ   ls<br \/>\n          vkosfndk uhjkckbZ ds xHkZ ls vukosnd dks  pkj<br \/>\n          oS\/kkfud  larku nks iq=h ,oa nks iq=  yds&#8221;ojh<br \/>\n          ckbZ  mez  7 o&#8217;kZ] mek iq=h mez 3  o&#8217;kZ]  iq=<br \/>\n          Hkjr  mez  5  o&#8217;kZ ,oa uk0ck0 iq=  eqUuk  mez<br \/>\n          yxHkx  ,d  ekg  iq=h  yds&#8221;ojh  ,oa  iq=  Hkjr<br \/>\n          vukosnd ds ikl jg jgk gS ,oa iq=h mek 3  o&#8217;kZ<br \/>\n          ,oa  ,d ekg dk iq= uk0ck0 eqUuk firk lardqekj<br \/>\n          vkosfndk ds lkFk jg jgs gS A&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>  Reply\/admission   of   the   allegations   and   subsequent<br \/>\n  explanation  by amendment of the applicant are as  follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;3@   ;g  fd  vkosfndkx.k  ds  vkosnu  i=  dh<br \/>\n          dafMdk&amp;3 dk d\/ku lR; gS] blfy;s Lohdkj gS A<\/p>\n<p>          3(d)@      &#8220;;g fd dafMdk&amp;3 d dsoy bruh  ckrsa<br \/>\n          lR;  gS  fd  y[ks&#8221;ojhckbZ  mekckbZ]  i=  Hkjr<br \/>\n          vukosnd  dh  rjQ ls oS\/kkfud larkusa  gS  ,oa<br \/>\n          eqUuk  dk  tUe tkjrk dh n&#8221;kk esa gqvk  gS  bl<br \/>\n          dkj.k vukosnd dk i= ugha gS] bl dkj.k esa rF;<br \/>\n          badkj gS fd eqUuk vukosnd dk iq= gS&#8221; A&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                                   (Amended on 20-7-99)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>9.   The applicant has specifically admitted in para 3 of his<br \/>\n  reply  relating  to  paternity of non-applicant  No.3,  but<br \/>\n  subsequently, he has made additional allegation  explaining<br \/>\n  paternity and alleged that non-applicant No.3 was born during<br \/>\n  the  course  of  adulterous  life of his mother  i.e.  non-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>  applicant No.1.  The present applicant has not withdrawn his<br \/>\n  previous admission of paternity.  Para 3 &amp; para 3 (a) of his<br \/>\n  reply  are  self-contradictory.  Para 3  of  his  reply  is<br \/>\n  supported by the allegation of the non-applicants and also by<br \/>\n  the  evidence  adduced  on behalf  of  the  non-applicants,<br \/>\n  however,  factum of birth of non-applicant No.3 during  the<br \/>\n  course  of  adulterous  life of non-applicant No.1  is  not<br \/>\n  corroborated by any ocular or documentary evidence  of  the<br \/>\n  present applicant.  In absence of any evidence to prove the<br \/>\n  allegation made in para 3 (a) of the reply of the applicant,<br \/>\n  it  is  difficult to hold that non-applicant No.3 was  born<br \/>\n  during the period of adulterous  life of non-applicant No.1<br \/>\n  and in absence of such proof it may be safely inferred on the<br \/>\n  basis of admission of the applicant in para 3 of his reply,<br \/>\n  allegation of the non-applicants and their evidence that non-<br \/>\n  applicant No.3 is the legitimate child of the applicant, he<br \/>\n  is  not  residing  with the applicant and is  entitled  for<br \/>\n  maintenance from his legitimate father under Section 125 of<br \/>\n  the Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.   Both  the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence<br \/>\n  available on record and after considering the law applicable,<br \/>\n  have awarded maintenance to non-applicant No.3.  The Courts<br \/>\n  below  have  not  committed  any illegality  resulted  into<br \/>\n  miscarriage of justice.  The order impugned does not warrant<br \/>\n  any  interference  in  exercise of  inherent  jurisdiction.<br \/>\n  Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it<br \/>\n  is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                    J U D G E<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Sant Kumar vs Neera Bai on 30 April, 2009 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc Criminal Case No 2828 of 2001 Sant Kumar &#8230;Petitioners Versus 1. Neera Bai 2. Ku. Uma 3. Pappu &#8230;Respondents {Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} ! Mr. M.D. Sharma, counsel for [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-141053","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-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>Sant Kumar vs Neera Bai on 30 April, 2009 - 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\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sant Kumar vs Neera Bai on 30 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-06T11:57:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sant Kumar vs Neera Bai on 30 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-06T11:57:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1588,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Sant Kumar vs Neera Bai on 30 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-06T11:57:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sant Kumar vs Neera Bai on 30 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Sant Kumar vs Neera Bai on 30 April, 2009 - 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\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sant Kumar vs Neera Bai on 30 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-06T11:57:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sant Kumar vs Neera Bai on 30 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-06T11:57:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009"},"wordCount":1588,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009","name":"Sant Kumar vs Neera Bai on 30 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-06T11:57:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sant-kumar-vs-neera-bai-on-30-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sant Kumar vs Neera Bai on 30 April, 2009"}]},{"@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\/141053","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=141053"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141053\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141053"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141053"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141053"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}