{"id":15237,"date":"2008-09-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008"},"modified":"2018-01-01T19:46:34","modified_gmt":"2018-01-01T14:16:34","slug":"smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Smt Kalpu @ Mukta Mandoth vs Prakash Mandoth on 4 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Smt Kalpu @ Mukta Mandoth vs Prakash Mandoth on 4 September, 2008<\/div>\n
                                                   DBCMA No.122\/1997\n                    Smt. Kalpu @ Smt. Mukta Mandoth Vs. Prakash Mandoth\n\n\n                            -{ 1 }-\n\n   IN THE HIG COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n                        AT JODHPUR\n                             ****\n                        :JUDGMENT:\n                Smt. Kalpu @ Mukta Mandoth\n                              Vs.\n                     Prakash Mandoth\n                             ****\n           D.B.    CIVIL   MISC.   APPEAL\n           NO.122\/1997    AGAISNT     THE\n           JUDGMENT AND DECRE DATED 1ST\n           NOV., 1996 PASSED BY SHRI S.K.\n           AGARWAL, LEAREND JUDGE OF THE\n           FAMILY COURT, JODHPUR IN CIVIL\n           CASE NO.94\/91.\n                            \nDate of Order           :                   4th September, 2008\n                            PRESENT\n          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA\n            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M.TOTLA\n\n\nMr.Jitendra Chopra, for the appellant.\nMr.Jagat Tatia for Mr. M. Shishodia, for the respondent.\n\n\nBY THE COURT: (Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prakash Tatia)<\/pre>\n
     The appellant is aggrieved against the divorce decree<\/p>\n
passed by the Family Court, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit<\/p>\n
No.94\/91 dated 1st Nov., 1996, hence, preferred this<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     Originally, the divorce petition was filed in the Family<\/p>\n
Court at Bangalore by the respondent, which was registered
\n                                                    DBCMA No.122\/1997
\n                    Smt. Kalpu @ Smt. Mukta Mandoth Vs. Prakash Mandoth<\/p>\n
                           -{ 2 }-\n<\/p>\n
as case no.MC No.509\/1990. The appellant-non-applicant<\/p>\n
sought transfer of said divorce petition to the Court at<\/p>\n
Jodhpur in the State of Rajasthan by moving transfer<\/p>\n
petition (Civil) No.549\/1994 before the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court, which was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by<\/p>\n
order dated 20th Dec., 1990. In consequence thereof, the<\/p>\n
divorce petition was transferred to the Family Court,<\/p>\n
Jodhpur. After trial, the trial court granted the decree for<\/p>\n
divorce.\n<\/p>\n
     The marriage of the appellant and the respondent was<\/p>\n
solemnized on 5th Dec., 1987 at Sumerpur in Pali District of<\/p>\n
State of Rajasthan according         to the Hindu rites.          The<\/p>\n
appellant started living with her husband at Bangalore after<\/p>\n
marriage. On 30th Oct., 1988, a baby Guddu @ Tina born to<\/p>\n
them. According to the respondent, appellant started<\/p>\n
behaving rudely at Bangalore with him as well as with his<\/p>\n
family members. The respondent had a large family rather<\/p>\n
he was member of joint family as respondent was living<\/p>\n
with his four younger brothers and four younger sisters.<\/p>\n
According to the respondent, he had responsibility to look<\/p>\n
after his aged parents and younger brothers and sisters.<\/p>\n
The appellant did not like this situation and wanted to live<\/p>\n
with her husband only. According to the respondent within<\/p>\n
three months after coming to the Bangalore, the appellant
\n                                                     DBCMA No.122\/1997
\n                     Smt. Kalpu @ Smt. Mukta Mandoth Vs. Prakash Mandoth<\/p>\n
                            -{ 3 }-\n<\/p>\n
started demanding separate house for her at Sumerpur and<\/p>\n
appellant also wanted that respondent-husband should live<\/p>\n
at her parents’ house at Sumerpur. When the respondent<\/p>\n
did not accept this demand of the appellant, then according<\/p>\n
to the respondent, the respondent was abused by the<\/p>\n
appellant by filthy language. She also abused family<\/p>\n
members of the respondent and threatened to commit<\/p>\n
suicide.   Because of the behaviour of the appellant,<\/p>\n
according to the respondent, the respondent and his family<\/p>\n
members loss their entire peace. The respondent’s relatives<\/p>\n
also tried to intervene who advised the appellant to live<\/p>\n
good life, but the appellant shot back towards the relatives<\/p>\n
of the respondent, who tried to intervene between them.<\/p>\n
According to the respondent, the appellant went to houses<\/p>\n
of their relatives and informed them that respondent and<\/p>\n
respondent’s family members alongwith other relatives are<\/p>\n
torturing her.    With the facts in detail, the respondent<\/p>\n
sought divorce on the ground that because of the act of the<\/p>\n
appellant, he and his family members are suffering serious<\/p>\n
mental cruelty.\n<\/p>\n
     Several letters exchanged between the parents of both<\/p>\n
the parties and those were produced and exhibited, details<\/p>\n
of which is not necessary because of the reason that the<\/p>\n
exchange of letters by both the parties clearly show that
\n                                                      DBCMA No.122\/1997
\n                      Smt. Kalpu @ Smt. Mukta Mandoth Vs. Prakash Mandoth<\/p>\n
                               -{ 4 }-\n<\/p>\n
relation was not strained only between the appellant and<\/p>\n
the respondent but become strained with their family<\/p>\n
members. Be it as it may be, according to the respondent,<\/p>\n
the appellant left for her parents house at Sumerpur on 23rd<\/p>\n
Sept., 1989 with valuable articles and did not return<\/p>\n
Bangalore. The respondent’s parents, went to Sumerpur to<\/p>\n
bring back the appellant, but she did not come back. Again<\/p>\n
on 26th May, 1990, the respondent went to Sumerpur to<\/p>\n
bring back his wife-appellant, but she did not come to<\/p>\n
Bangalore with respondent and wrote a letter saying “good<\/p>\n
bye” to the respondent.          It is also alleged that even at<\/p>\n
Sumerpur, the respondent was ill treated by the appellant.<\/p>\n
The respondent on the ground of cruelty sought divorce as<\/p>\n
well as custody of his daughter Guddu @ Tina.<\/p>\n
      The appellant submitted reply to the divorce petition<\/p>\n
on 21st Jan., 1992 and admitted that her marriage with the<\/p>\n
respondent as per Hindu rites at Sumerpur.                   She also<\/p>\n
admitted that she gave birth to daughter Guddu @ Tina and<\/p>\n
admitted that her daughter is living with her. She denied all<\/p>\n
the   allegations   levelled    against    her    about     her    rude<\/p>\n
behaviour against the respondent and his family members.<\/p>\n
She levelled counter allegations of her harassment by her<\/p>\n
mother-in-law and levelled allegation of demand of dowry<\/p>\n
and torture.    She denied that she demanded separate
\n                                                      DBCMA No.122\/1997
\n                      Smt. Kalpu @ Smt. Mukta Mandoth Vs. Prakash Mandoth<\/p>\n
                             -{ 5 }-\n<\/p>\n
house at Sumerpur. It is also stated by the appellant that<\/p>\n
her parents tried to persuade the respondent to keep the<\/p>\n
appellant with him, but the respondent and his family<\/p>\n
members insisted for dowry. She also stated that younger<\/p>\n
brother   of   the   respondent      Nirmal     conducted       second<\/p>\n
marriage, obviously to show that what was the nature of<\/p>\n
family members of the respondent.                She alleged that<\/p>\n
respondent used to come late in night and she had doubt<\/p>\n
about his character. She stated that she had utmost love<\/p>\n
and affection for her daughter Guddu who was student of<\/p>\n
Model English School at that time.\n<\/p>\n
     The rejoinder was submitted by the respondent and in<\/p>\n
rejoinder, it is stated that on 22nd June, 1992, it was<\/p>\n
decided that both the parties will seek divorce mutually and<\/p>\n
all ornaments and cash and other goods were returned to<\/p>\n
the appellant for which appellant gave due receipt.<\/p>\n
     The issues were framed and in the trial court<\/p>\n
respondent gave his statement as AW-1 and produced other<\/p>\n
witness AW-2 Sohan Lal, AW-3 Jagdish, AW-4 Smt. Nazri<\/p>\n
Bai, AW-5 Suwa Lal and          AW-6 Devi Lal Shaklecha. The<\/p>\n
appellant gave her own statement and produced NAW-2<\/p>\n
Narayan Bharti, NAW-3 Pukh Raj, NAW-4 Kailash Chandra<\/p>\n
Arora, NAW-5 Shiv Kumar, NAW-6 Narayan lal Agarwal and<\/p>\n
NAW-7 Smt. Indu.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      DBCMA No.122\/1997
\n                      Smt. Kalpu @ Smt. Mukta Mandoth Vs. Prakash Mandoth<\/p>\n
                             -{ 6 }-\n<\/p>\n
     The trial court decided the issue of committing cruelty<\/p>\n
by the appellant in favour of the respondent, but decided<\/p>\n
the issue about the entitlement to the custody of daughter<\/p>\n
Guddu @ Tinna in favour of the appellant and against the<\/p>\n
respondent . A counter issue about the ill treatment by the<\/p>\n
respondent against the non-applicant-appellant was also<\/p>\n
framed by the trial court and that was decided against the<\/p>\n
appellant as she failed to prove ill treatment of the<\/p>\n
respondent and his family members. The trial court also<\/p>\n
held that for Istridhan no evidence was produced by the<\/p>\n
appellant and a receipt dated 22nd June, 1992 has been<\/p>\n
produced to show that ornaments, cash and cloths etc were<\/p>\n
returned   by   the   respondent       to    the    appellant.        In<\/p>\n
consequence to the findings recorded above, the divorce<\/p>\n
decree was granted by the trial court on 1st Nov., 1996.<\/p>\n
     We may      recapitulate      the fact     that    marriage of<\/p>\n
appellant and respondent took place on 5th Dec., 1988 and<\/p>\n
the divorce decree was granted by the trial court as back as<\/p>\n
on 1st Nov., 1996.     In the evidence, the appellant herself<\/p>\n
stated that respondent already contracted second marriage<\/p>\n
and according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the<\/p>\n
respondent has children from second marriage. According<\/p>\n
to the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent<\/p>\n
conducted second marriage when the divorce matter was
\n                                                    DBCMA No.122\/1997
\n                    Smt. Kalpu @ Smt. Mukta Mandoth Vs. Prakash Mandoth<\/p>\n
                           -{ 7 }-\n<\/p>\n
pending. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant that the respondent owns duty to maintain his<\/p>\n
daughter and contribute in the marriage of his daughter.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the<\/p>\n
decree for   divorce on the ground of cruelty cannot be<\/p>\n
sustained.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in<\/p>\n
view of the serious allegations against the character of the<\/p>\n
appellant and in view of the fact that the respondent and<\/p>\n
appellant are living separately since more than 10 years<\/p>\n
even from the date of decree of divorce and in view of the<\/p>\n
allegations of the appellant, there is no chance of reunion<\/p>\n
between the parties. It is also submitted that appellant has<\/p>\n
her own income sufficient to maintain herself as well as to<\/p>\n
bear all necessary expenses for marriage of her daughter.<\/p>\n
It is also submitted that there is no evidence on record on<\/p>\n
the basis of which any amount can be awarded for the<\/p>\n
purpose of marriage of the respondent’s daughter.                It is<\/p>\n
also submitted that from the oral as well as documentary<\/p>\n
evidence, it is fully proved that appellant has committed<\/p>\n
grave cruelty and torture to respondent and his family<\/p>\n
members.     Therefore, appeal of the appellant may be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     We considered the submissions of learned counsel for
\n                                                       DBCMA No.122\/1997
\n                       Smt. Kalpu @ Smt. Mukta Mandoth Vs. Prakash Mandoth<\/p>\n
                                -{ 8 }-\n<\/p>\n
the parties and perused the record. Without referring the<\/p>\n
detail evidence of the parties we would like to observe that<\/p>\n
after    perusing     all the letters exchanged between the<\/p>\n
family members of the appellant and the respondent<\/p>\n
containing several allegations and counter allegations,<\/p>\n
there appears that the situation became absolutely out of<\/p>\n
control for both the parties and their family member in the<\/p>\n
matter of relation of the appellant and the respondent and<\/p>\n
it happened decade ago. The learned trial court considered<\/p>\n
the various judgments on the issue of cruelty – physical<\/p>\n
and mental both and the trial court thereafter, reached to<\/p>\n
the conclusion that the respondent proved by evidence that<\/p>\n
cruelty was committed by the appellant upon respondent<\/p>\n
and his family members. Even if that finding suffers from<\/p>\n
any error of fact even then no useful purpose can be served<\/p>\n
by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court<\/p>\n
granting divorce for appellant and respondent,               looking to<\/p>\n
the allegations against the character of respondent-husand<\/p>\n
and     the   allegation   of   the   appellant     that   respondent<\/p>\n
contracted second marriage and has children from second<\/p>\n
marriage and looking to the allegation that the appellant<\/p>\n
herself has been harassed and tortured by the respondent<\/p>\n
and his family members then now after 12 years of divorce<\/p>\n
decree, there is no possibility of reunion of parties.               The
\n                                                    DBCMA No.122\/1997
\n                    Smt. Kalpu @ Smt. Mukta Mandoth Vs. Prakash Mandoth<\/p>\n
                           -{ 9 }-\n<\/p>\n
documentary evidence, the letters Ex.17 (8.8.1991), Ex.18<\/p>\n
(16.7.1991), Ex.19 (16.7.1991) and Ex.1 to Ex.16, Ex.A3<\/p>\n
as well as oral evidence of parties running in several pages<\/p>\n
only proved one fact that they cannot live together. In this<\/p>\n
situation, we do not want to interfere with the judgment<\/p>\n
passed by the trial court granting decree for divorce. The<\/p>\n
allegation of cruelty lost its any importance after lapse of<\/p>\n
more than 12 years from the time of passing of decree of<\/p>\n
divorce for appellant and respondent. Therefore, we are not<\/p>\n
inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment and the<\/p>\n
decree passed by the trial court when the parties are living<\/p>\n
separately since more than 12 years, may be because of<\/p>\n
the decree passed by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
     So far as claim of the appellant for any amount for the<\/p>\n
purpose of marriage of the appellant and respondent’s<\/p>\n
daughter is concerned, there is no material and evidence<\/p>\n
available on record apart from the fact that there was no<\/p>\n
prayer before the trial court as it could not have been at the<\/p>\n
time due to age of the daughter of the appellant and<\/p>\n
respondent. Consequently, there is no evidence on the<\/p>\n
basis of which this issue can be considered by this Court at<\/p>\n
appellate stage when both the parties are not present<\/p>\n
before the Court.      If the appellant and respondent’s<\/p>\n
daughter is entitled to any relief of any kind then she may
\n                                                                  DBCMA No.122\/1997
\n                                  Smt. Kalpu @ Smt. Mukta Mandoth Vs. Prakash Mandoth<\/p>\n
                                        -{ 10 }-\n<\/p>\n
              be free to avail the remedy in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
                   In view of the above reasons, the appeal of the<\/p>\n
              appellant is dismissed. No order as to costs.<\/p>\n
              [C. M. TOTLA], J.                        [PRAKASH TATIA],J.\n\n\n\nc.p.goyal\/-\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Smt Kalpu @ Mukta Mandoth vs Prakash Mandoth on 4 September, 2008 DBCMA No.122\/1997 Smt. Kalpu @ Smt. Mukta Mandoth Vs. Prakash Mandoth -{ 1 }- IN THE HIG COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR **** :JUDGMENT: Smt. Kalpu @ Mukta Mandoth Vs. Prakash Mandoth **** D.B. CIVIL MISC. […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15237","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt Kalpu @ Mukta Mandoth vs Prakash Mandoth on 4 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\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt Kalpu @ Mukta Mandoth vs Prakash Mandoth on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-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=\"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-01T14:16:34+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt Kalpu @ Mukta Mandoth vs Prakash Mandoth on 4 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-01T14:16:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1952,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Smt Kalpu @ Mukta Mandoth vs Prakash Mandoth on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-01T14:16:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt Kalpu @ Mukta Mandoth vs Prakash Mandoth on 4 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":"Smt Kalpu @ Mukta Mandoth vs Prakash Mandoth on 4 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\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt Kalpu @ Mukta Mandoth vs Prakash Mandoth on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-01T14:16:34+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt Kalpu @ Mukta Mandoth vs Prakash Mandoth on 4 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-01T14:16:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008"},"wordCount":1952,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008","name":"Smt Kalpu @ Mukta Mandoth vs Prakash Mandoth on 4 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-01T14:16:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kalpu-mukta-mandoth-vs-prakash-mandoth-on-4-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt Kalpu @ Mukta Mandoth vs Prakash Mandoth on 4 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\/15237","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=15237"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15237\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15237"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15237"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15237"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}