{"id":170008,"date":"1992-02-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1992-02-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992"},"modified":"2014-12-07T16:26:51","modified_gmt":"2014-12-07T10:56:51","slug":"asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992","title":{"rendered":"Asha Choudhary vs Rajesh Kumar on 28 February, 1992"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Asha Choudhary vs Rajesh Kumar on 28 February, 1992<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: II (1992) DMC 420<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Dubey<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S Dubey<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>S.K. Dubey, J.<\/p>\n<p>1. This appeal under Order 43 Rule l(d) of the<br \/>\nCode of Civil Procedure, read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<br \/>\n(for short the &#8216;Act&#8217;), is against the order dt. 24.10.89 passed in Misc. Civil<br \/>\nCase No. 7\/1987, whereby the District Judge, Dewas dismissed the application<br \/>\nof the appellant\/defendant under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C, for setting aside the<br \/>\nex-parte decree dated 19.3.1987 passed for dissolution of marriage in Civil Suit<br \/>\nNo. 24-A\/86.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Brief facts leading to this, appeal are thus: that the respondent<br \/>\nplaintiff, the husband of the appellant\/defendant, instituted a suit Under Section<br \/>\n13(1) (ia) &amp; (ib) of the Act for dissolution of marriage. Of the suit the summons were not served in the ordinary manner as well as by the registered post. The registered envelope was received back with the postal endorsement of &#8216;in<br \/>\ncomplete address&#8217;. On the application of the respondent, under Order 5 Rule<br \/>\n20 (1-A) of C.P.C. the Court ordered for effecting service by way of publication. The publication was made in &#8216;Daily Prasaran&#8217;, wherein the date 22,1.1987<br \/>\nwas fixed for hearing and appearance of the respondent. On 22.1.87 the<br \/>\nPresiding Officer was on leave, therefore the clerk of the Court adjourned the<br \/>\ncase to 28.1.87. On 28.1.87 the Court adjourned the case to 28.2.87, no this<br \/>\nday too the Presiding Officer was on leave, hence, the clerk of the Court fixed<br \/>\nthe case to 9.3.87. On 9.3.87 the Court did not proceed ex-parte against the<br \/>\nappellant\/defendant and adjourned the case to 13.3.87 marking absence of the<br \/>\nappellant\/defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The appellant having come to know from her neighbour that<br \/>\nthe publication has been made, sent an application by registered post, which<br \/>\nwas received by the Court on 22.1.87, the date fixed for appearance, making a<br \/>\nprayer therein to supply the copy of the plaint so that the appellant\/defendant<br \/>\nmay attend and defend the case. The appellant also sent a self-addressed<br \/>\nstampped envelope so as to receive the reply, but, no order was passed on this<br \/>\naplication on 22-1-87 and on 9.3.87.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. On 13.3.87 the Court rejected the application and proceeded exparte. On 19.3.87 the statement of the respondent\/husband was recorded and<br \/>\nex-parte decree for dissolution of marriage was passed on the aforesaid two<br \/>\ngrounds.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. The appellant having come to know, filed an application under<br \/>\nOrder 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parle decree. That application<br \/>\nwas opposed on various grounds taking plea of limitation and to the proviso of<br \/>\nOrder 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. contending that the defendant had the notice of the<br \/>\ndate of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the claim, therefore, the irregularity in service will not affect the validity of the ex-parte<br \/>\ndecree.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. The Trial Court dismissed the application as barred by time, as<br \/>\nhaving not been filed within 30 days from the date of passing of the ex-parte<br \/>\ndecree.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. It is this order which has been challenged in appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. Shri R.S. Kochatta, Counsel for the appellant, Shri S.S. Samvatsar<br \/>\nCounsel for the respondent, heard. &#8216;<\/p>\n<p>9. After hearing Counsel, I am of the opinion that this appeal has<br \/>\nto be allowed and the ex-parte decree has to be set aside, for the reasons hereinafter to follow.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. The law is settled that as far as possible the personal service is to<br \/>\nbe affected, but, the defendant who is served by publication, appears and makes<br \/>\na prayer to supply a copy of the plaint to contest the suit, the Court is bound<br \/>\nto order to supply the copy of the plaint so as to enable the defendant to<br \/>\nknow, the concise statement thereof and the particular claim brought by the<br \/>\nplaintiff against him, and make up the mind against the claim, that is why<br \/>\nOrder 5 Rule 2 of C.P.C. provides that annexing copy of plaint to summons<br \/>\nis mandatory and if, the summons are searved without supplying the copy of<br \/>\nthe plaint, the service cannot be deemed to be valid. See a Division Bench<br \/>\ndecision of this Court in the case of Smt, Chhutbai and Another v Madanlal and<br \/>\nAnother, AIR 1989 MP 330.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. It was contended that the defendant on service by affixture<br \/>\nhaving gathered knowledge was bound to appear and the Court is not obliged<br \/>\nto send a copy of the plaint, therefore, the ex-parte decree was rightly passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>True, the defendant ought to have appeared on 22.1.1987, but nothing was<br \/>\ndone on 22.1.87, as the Presiding Officer was on leave, hence, the case was<br \/>\nadjourned by the clerk of the Court to 9.3.87 which was not the date for hearing and the party&#8217;s absence on that date did not give jurisdiction to Court to Proceed ex-parte, which is the consistent view of this Court. See 1991 MPLJ 329, Sushila Bai v. Ram Nihore Jagatdhari Prasad Patel, 1986 C.C.LJ. Note 39, Mohanlal Brijlal Partnership Firm v. Manga, and 1978 Vol. I MPWN, Note 443, Kranti Kunar Jha v. Dr. J.B. Shrivastave.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. In case of Kranti Kumar Jha (supra) this Court relying on AIR<br \/>\n1964 MP 261, Nanda Dayaram v. Rajaram, has observed that in the absence<br \/>\nof the Presiding Judge, the Court should be deemed to have been closed for<br \/>\njudicial functioning, or say, as if a date had been fixed which happened to be a<br \/>\nholiday, if a summons issued for a date which happened to be a holiday, the<br \/>\ndefendant was under no obligation to appear on that day or on the following<br \/>\nday to find out for which date the case stood adjourned. The summons could<br \/>\nnot be treated as a proper summons under Order 5 Rule 1 C.P.C. therefore, a<br \/>\nparty may wait for another notice.\n<\/p>\n<p>13. In view of this, in my opinion, the Court was having no jurisdiction to proceed with the case against the defendant ex-parte,<\/p>\n<p>14. In such a case plea of limitation under Article 123 of the Limitation Act was not available to the respondent, as there was no service, however,<br \/>\nthe however, the defendant having remained in belief that the defendant will<br \/>\nget the response waited, but, to her ill luck, the ex-parte decree was passed. In<br \/>\nsuch circumstances, there was a sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the<br \/>\ndefendant on the date fixed by the Court, to which the defendant was not<br \/>\nnoticed.\n<\/p>\n<p>15. Therefore, even if the application was filed beyond 30 days from<br \/>\nthe date of the decree, after the knowledge of the ex-parte decree, the application cannot be said to be beyond time. Even assuming, the application was<br \/>\nbeyond time, the facts entitle the defendant to the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which are made out in the application under 0.9 Rule 13<br \/>\nC.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>16. It is trite that while considering an application under Order 9<br \/>\nRule 9 or 13, generous construction should be placed on the enactment to<br \/>\nrestore a suit or to set aside ex-parte decree for the default of appearance of a<br \/>\nparty, and a party should not be deprived of hearing, unless there is something<br \/>\nequivalent to misconduct or gross negligence.\n<\/p>\n<p>17. In case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1117226\/\">Collector, Land Acquisition, Ananinag and Another v.<br \/>\nMst. Katiji and Others, AIR<\/a> 1987 SC 1353, the apex Court while considering a<br \/>\ncase of condonation of delay on an application Under Section 5 of the Limitaion Act, observed that the approach should be liberal aad justice oriented and<br \/>\nfor that laid down six principles; one of them is, when substantial justice and<br \/>\ntechnical considerations a repitted against each other, cause of substantial<br \/>\njustice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested<br \/>\nright in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay, as a litigant<br \/>\ndoes not get benefit by resorting to delay, in fact he runs a serious risk.\n<\/p>\n<p>18. As the facts of the case speak, the appellant was honestly intending to defend the case, but remained in the belief that a notice and response<br \/>\nwill be received from the Court; in such circumstances, the interest of justice<br \/>\nrequired that even the delay, if any, in filing the application under Order 9<br \/>\nRule 13 C.P.C. ought to have been condoned. Therefore, in my opinion, the<br \/>\nCourt below proceeded with erroneous approach and acted illegally in not condoning the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>19. In the result, the appeal is allowed, application under Order 9 Rule<br \/>\n13 C.P.C. is allowed, as a result of that the ex-parte decree passed in Civil Suit<br \/>\nNo. 24-A\/86 is set aside. Now the Trial Court shall proceed with the case<br \/>\nexpeditiously, as it relates to the matrimonial dispute, which has to be decided<br \/>\nexpeditiously, therefore, it is directed that the parties shall appear before the<br \/>\nTrial Court on 25.3.1992 for that no fresh notice shall be issued to the parties.<br \/>\nThe Trial Court shall see that the suit, so filed, is disposed of as far as practicable within a period of six months from 25.3.1992. Record of the Court below<br \/>\nbe sent to the concerned Trial Court. No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madhya Pradesh High Court Asha Choudhary vs Rajesh Kumar on 28 February, 1992 Equivalent citations: II (1992) DMC 420 Author: S Dubey Bench: S Dubey JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey, J. 1. This appeal under Order 43 Rule l(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short [&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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-170008","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Asha Choudhary vs Rajesh Kumar on 28 February, 1992 - 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\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Asha Choudhary vs Rajesh Kumar on 28 February, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992\" \/>\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=\"1992-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-07T10:56:51+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Asha Choudhary vs Rajesh Kumar on 28 February, 1992\",\"datePublished\":\"1992-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-07T10:56:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992\"},\"wordCount\":1494,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992\",\"name\":\"Asha Choudhary vs Rajesh Kumar on 28 February, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1992-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-07T10:56:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Asha Choudhary vs Rajesh Kumar on 28 February, 1992\"}]},{\"@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":"Asha Choudhary vs Rajesh Kumar on 28 February, 1992 - 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\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Asha Choudhary vs Rajesh Kumar on 28 February, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1992-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-07T10:56:51+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Asha Choudhary vs Rajesh Kumar on 28 February, 1992","datePublished":"1992-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-07T10:56:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992"},"wordCount":1494,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992","name":"Asha Choudhary vs Rajesh Kumar on 28 February, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1992-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-07T10:56:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asha-choudhary-vs-rajesh-kumar-on-28-february-1992#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Asha Choudhary vs Rajesh Kumar on 28 February, 1992"}]},{"@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\/170008","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=170008"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170008\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=170008"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=170008"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=170008"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}