{"id":166729,"date":"2008-02-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008"},"modified":"2018-05-17T20:19:35","modified_gmt":"2018-05-17T14:49:35","slug":"krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Krishnan Venugopalan vs Sreedevi @ Srimathi on 12 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Krishnan Venugopalan vs Sreedevi @ Srimathi on 12 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMFA No. 1261 of 1999(B)\n\n\n\n1. KRISHNAN VENUGOPALAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. SREEDEVI @ SRIMATHI\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.J.OM PRAKASH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :12\/02\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n               KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.\n\n              ----------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                              M.F.A. NO. 1261 OF 1999\n\n              ----------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n                     Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008\n\n\n                                       JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.\n<\/p>\n
        This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.6.1999 in O.P.\n<\/p>\n
(HMA) No.30 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Alappuzha.\n<\/p>\n
The petitioner in the Original Petition is the appellant. The petition filed by<\/p>\n
the   petitioner\/husband   under   Section   13(1)   of   the   Hindu   Marriage   Act,<\/p>\n
1955 for a decree of divorce was dismissed by the trial court holding that<\/p>\n
the   petitioner   is   not   entitled   to   get   a   decree   of   divorce   on   the   grounds<\/p>\n
stated in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
        2.         The   parties   herein   are   referred   to   as   the   petitioner   and<\/p>\n
respondent   as   in   the   Original   Petition.     The   parties   belong   to   Ezhava<\/p>\n
community.  They got married on 15.4.1976 in accordance with the custom<\/p>\n
and ceremonies prevalent in the community.   After marriage, they resided<\/p>\n
together till the end of 1980 and three children were born in the wedlock.\n<\/p>\n
The first two children who are twins were born on 20.2.1977 and the third<\/p>\n
M.F.A.NO.1261\/1999                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
child was  born  on  1.9.1978.    It is  pleaded  that  subsequent  to  the   second<\/p>\n
delivery,   the   respondent   started   behaving   cruelly   towards   the   petitioner,<\/p>\n
spoiling   the   peaceful   domestic   atmosphere,     that   she   maintained   illegal<\/p>\n
connection with strangers in the absence of the petitioner, that she treated<\/p>\n
the petitioner with contempt and made use of all opportunities  to ridicule<\/p>\n
him   before   his   friends   and   relatives,   that   she   failed   to   discharge   the<\/p>\n
obligations of marriage and  look after the affairs of the petitioner and the<\/p>\n
children and that by the end of 1980, the respondent left the house of the<\/p>\n
petitioner with the female child and continued her illegal connection with<\/p>\n
strangers.  Thereafter, the respondent filed M.C. No.42 of 1981 before the<\/p>\n
Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Cherthala claiming maintenance for<\/p>\n
herself   and   the   female   child.         The   said   petition   was   allowed   by   the<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate.  The daughter was given in marriage by the respondent<\/p>\n
on 13.4.1998 without informing the petitioner.  It is also alleged that  it is<\/p>\n
impossible for the petitioner to have a life with the respondent under any<\/p>\n
circumstances.  The petitioner also suspects that his life itself would be in<\/p>\n
danger in case he happened to live with the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
       3.  The respondent resisted the petition for divorce contending inter<\/p>\n
alia that  it was the petitioner who had taken her and the child to her house<\/p>\n
on  20.12.1980.    She further contended  that though the petitioner used  to<\/p>\n
M.F.A.NO.1261\/1999                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
visit   her   every   week,   subsequently   he   stopped   visiting   her   and   it   was<\/p>\n
thereafter   that   she   filed   the   petition   for   maintenance.     The   petition   was<\/p>\n
allowed finding that the petitioner\/husband  failed to maintain his wife and<\/p>\n
daughter   without   any   reasonable   cause.     The  respondent   also  denied   the<\/p>\n
allegation   that   she   behaved   cruelly   to     the   petitioner   and   that   she<\/p>\n
maintained illegal connection with strangers.  She pleaded that she had not<\/p>\n
treated the petitioner with contempt nor had she deserted him as alleged in<\/p>\n
the petition.\n<\/p>\n
       4.     The   court   below   examined   three   issues:   (i)   whether   the<\/p>\n
respondent   had   treated   the   petitioner   with   cruelty,   (ii)   whether   the<\/p>\n
assertions   of   immorality   made   against   the   respondent   are   true   and   (iii)<\/p>\n
whether the respondent had deserted the petitioner  for a continuous period<\/p>\n
of not  less  than  two  years  immediately preceding  the  presentation  of the<\/p>\n
Original Petition.\n<\/p>\n
       5.     The   evidence   in   this   case   consists   of   the   oral   evidence   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner, his son  and the respondent who were examined as PWs.1 and 2<\/p>\n
and RW.1 respectively.  Exts.A1 to A4(a) were marked on the side of the<\/p>\n
petitioner.   The  court  below  found  that  no  satisfactory material  has  been<\/p>\n
adduced even prima facie to support the assertions of immorality, that the<\/p>\n
M.F.A.NO.1261\/1999                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner   did   not   implead   the   persons   with   whom   the   respondent   had<\/p>\n
allegedly   been   living   in   adultery   as   co-respondents,   that   the   evidence<\/p>\n
adduced  in this  case is not sufficient  to come to  the conclusion  that   the<\/p>\n
respondent had committed physical and mental cruelty to the petitioner and<\/p>\n
that the petitioner had not   succeeded in showing that the respondent had<\/p>\n
deserted  him.     On the basis  of these  findings,  the  court  below  held  that<\/p>\n
the   petitioner   is   not   entitled   to   a   decree   for   divorce   and   dismissed   the<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   It is an admitted fact that the respondent left the residence of the<\/p>\n
petitioner along with the female child in the year 1980 and they have been<\/p>\n
living separately since then.     As PW.1, the petitioner deposed  that there<\/p>\n
has   not   been   any     co-habitation   or   joint   residence   between   the   parties<\/p>\n
subsequent   to   the   departure   of   the   respondent   from   the   residence   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner.  The respondent gave evidence  stating that  the petitioner failed<\/p>\n
to  visit   her   house   subsequent   to  their  separation   and   that   she   filed   M.C.\n<\/p>\n
No.42   of   1981   for   maintenance.       Admittedly,   the   petitioner   and   the<\/p>\n
respondent   had  been  living  separately since  the  end   of   1980.    The   court<\/p>\n
below disbelieved the evidence of the respondent  that the petitioner used<\/p>\n
to visit her after she began to reside in her house  by the end of 1980.  So,<\/p>\n
it has to be concluded that  for the last 27 years, the husband and wife are<\/p>\n
M.F.A.NO.1261\/1999                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
living separately. The conduct of the parties and the facts of the case reveal<\/p>\n
that   the   parties     had   made   up   their   minds   to   put   an   end   to   the   marital<\/p>\n
relation and co-habitation permanently, at least for the last two and a half<\/p>\n
decades.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   Desertion is an act which implies abandonment against the wish<\/p>\n
of the person charging it.   In this case, it was the respondent who left the<\/p>\n
matrimonial home  and started residing separately.  The question raised is<\/p>\n
will the conduct  amount to  desertion  on  the  part  of the respondent.   The<\/p>\n
Supreme   Court   in   the   decision   reported   in  Bipinchandra   Jaisingbhai<\/p>\n
Shah   v.   Prabhavati,   AIR   1957   SC   176  held   that   where   the   wife   is<\/p>\n
forcibly   turned   out   of   her   marital   home   by   the   husband,   the   husband   is<\/p>\n
guilty of constructive desertion.   The test is not who left the matrimonial<\/p>\n
home   first.     If   one   spouse   by   his   words   and   conduct   compels   the   other<\/p>\n
spouse to leave the marital home, the former would be guilty of desertion,<\/p>\n
though  it is the latter who is physically separated from the other and has<\/p>\n
been made to leave the marital home. There is no evidence in this case to<\/p>\n
find that the wife was forcefully turned out of her matrimonial home by the<\/p>\n
husband.     Exts.A4   and   A4(a)     would   show   that   the   respondent   had<\/p>\n
received   amounts   sent   towards   maintenance   by   the   petitioner.     The<\/p>\n
evidence   of   PW.2,   the   son   of   the   parties   shows   that   the   respondent,   his<\/p>\n
M.F.A.NO.1261\/1999                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
mother, had never visited the house where he and his father were residing.\n<\/p>\n
He had also deposed that   he is now aged 21 years   and that he had seen<\/p>\n
the   respondent   only   once   after   she   left   the   matrimonial   home.     The<\/p>\n
available evidence discussed above shows that the respondent\/wife had left<\/p>\n
the matrimonial home without reasonable and sufficient cause and that she<\/p>\n
had   put   an   end   to   the   marital   relation   and   co-habitation.     Under   these<\/p>\n
circumstances,   the   respondent   is   to   be   blamed   for   the     desertion     which<\/p>\n
constitutes a ground for divorce.\n<\/p>\n
       8.     Twenty-seven   years   have   elapsed   since   the   petitioner   and<\/p>\n
respondent have been separated.       We have made some earnest efforts to<\/p>\n
find  whether the parties are willing to reside together.  We find that there<\/p>\n
is  no possibility of the parties    resuming normal marital life.     There has<\/p>\n
been an irretrievable breakdown of marriage between the husband and the<\/p>\n
wife.  The husband had proved before the Family Court  both the factum of<\/p>\n
separation as well as animus deserendi  which are the essential elements of<\/p>\n
desertion.       A   workable   solution     is   certainly   not   possible.     The   parties<\/p>\n
cannot at this stage reconcile themselves  and live together forgetting their<\/p>\n
past.  Because of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the marriage<\/p>\n
between the  parties  has  been    rendered   a dead  wood.     Learned  counsel<\/p>\n
appearing  for  the  appellant  submitted  before   us    that  no   purpose   will   be<\/p>\n
M.F.A.NO.1261\/1999                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
served     by   keeping   such   a   marriage     alive   on   paper   which   would   only<\/p>\n
aggravate the agony of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
       9.  Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground by itself for<\/p>\n
divorce.       But,   while   scrutinising   the   evidence   on   record   to   determine<\/p>\n
whether  the grounds alleged  are made out and in determining  the relief to<\/p>\n
be granted, the said circumstance can certainly be borne in mind, as held<\/p>\n
by   the   Supreme   Court   in   the   decision   reported   in  Durga   Prasanna<\/p>\n
Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy<\/a> (2005) 7 SCC 353.   The Supreme Court<\/p>\n
in   the   above   decision,   on   finding   that   14   years   have   elapsed   since    the<\/p>\n
husband   and   wife   had   separated,   held   that   there   has   been     irretrievable<\/p>\n
breakdown   of     marriage   between   the   parties   and   that   reunion   was<\/p>\n
impossible   and   that   the   parties   cannot   at   this   stage   reconcile   themselves<\/p>\n
and live together forgetting their past.  The Supreme Court, therefore, held<\/p>\n
that there is no other option except   to allow the appeal and set aside the<\/p>\n
judgment   of   the   High   Court   and   affirm   the   order   of   the   Family   Court<\/p>\n
granting decree of divorce.\n<\/p>\n
       10.     We   also   find   that   the   parties   cannot     at   this   stage   reconcile<\/p>\n
themselves     and   live   together   as   husband   and   wife   forgetting   their   past.\n<\/p>\n
Both the parties have crossed the point of no return.  Therefore, we are of<\/p>\n
M.F.A.NO.1261\/1999                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
the   considered   view   that   in   the   interest   of   justice,   the   appeal   is   to   be<\/p>\n
allowed  setting aside the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
        In the result, the appeal is allowed.   A decree of divorce is granted<\/p>\n
dissolving   the   marriage   between   the   appellant   and   the   respondent   with<\/p>\n
effect from today.  There will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                           (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
                                             (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
sp\/<\/p>\n
M.F.A.NO.1261\/1999    9<\/span><\/p>\n
                           KURAIN JOSEPH &<\/p>\n
                           HAURN-UL-RASHID, J.J<\/p>\n
                           M.F.A.NO1261\/1999<\/p>\n
                               JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                           12TH FEBRUARY, 2008.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Krishnan Venugopalan vs Sreedevi @ Srimathi on 12 February, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM MFA No. 1261 of 1999(B) 1. KRISHNAN VENUGOPALAN … Petitioner Vs 1. SREEDEVI @ SRIMATHI … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR For Respondent :SRI.J.OM PRAKASH The Hon’ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/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-166729","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKrishnan Venugopalan vs Sreedevi @ Srimathi on 12 February, 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\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Krishnan Venugopalan vs Sreedevi @ Srimathi on 12 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-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=\"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-17T14:49:35+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\\\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Krishnan Venugopalan vs Sreedevi @ Srimathi on 12 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-17T14:49:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1598,\"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\\\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Krishnan Venugopalan vs Sreedevi @ Srimathi on 12 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-17T14:49:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Krishnan Venugopalan vs Sreedevi @ Srimathi on 12 February, 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":"Krishnan Venugopalan vs Sreedevi @ Srimathi on 12 February, 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\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Krishnan Venugopalan vs Sreedevi @ Srimathi on 12 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-17T14:49:35+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\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Krishnan Venugopalan vs Sreedevi @ Srimathi on 12 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-17T14:49:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008"},"wordCount":1598,"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\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008","name":"Krishnan Venugopalan vs Sreedevi @ Srimathi on 12 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-17T14:49:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-venugopalan-vs-sreedevi-srimathi-on-12-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Krishnan Venugopalan vs Sreedevi @ Srimathi on 12 February, 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\/166729","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=166729"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166729\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166729"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166729"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166729"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}