{"id":170653,"date":"2010-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010"},"modified":"2017-08-27T00:04:11","modified_gmt":"2017-08-26T18:34:11","slug":"jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jayakumar V.K. vs Sasikala @ Latha on 26 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Jayakumar V.K. vs Sasikala @ Latha on 26 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 1156 of 2002()\n\n\n1. JAYAKUMAR V.K. S\/O. KUTTAPPAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SASIKALA @ LATHA, AGED 34 YEARS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.P.JACOB\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS\n\n Dated :26\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                 M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.\n                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                  Crl.R.P.No. 1156 of 2002\n                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n          Dated this the 26th day of November, 2010\n\n                              O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
     This revision petition is filed by the complainant in C.C.<\/p>\n
No. 9 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate<\/p>\n
Court -I, Ernakulam. The first respondent herein was the accused<\/p>\n
in that case, which was filed by the complainant alleging<\/p>\n
commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.<\/p>\n
     2. The case of the complainant is as follows. The accused<\/p>\n
issued a cheque for Rs.70,000\/- dt.25.11.1997 drawn on the<\/p>\n
Amballoor     Janatha     Service       Co-operative         Bank Ltd.,<\/p>\n
Kanjiramattom branch to the complainant towards the discharge<\/p>\n
of the loan availed by the          accused.       When it was sent for<\/p>\n
collection, it was dishonoured for the reason ‘funds insufficient’<\/p>\n
vide memo dt.11.12.1997. Notice dt. 16.12.1997 was issued to<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No. 1156 of 2002<\/p>\n
                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
the accused informing her about the dishonour of the cheque and<\/p>\n
demanding the payment.         The accused received the notice on<\/p>\n
17.12.1997. Even after receipt of the Notice, she failed to pay the<\/p>\n
amount. Hence the complaint was filed.\n<\/p>\n
      3. In the Magistrate Court, on the side of the complainant, the<\/p>\n
complainant himself was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were<\/p>\n
marked. On the side of the defence, Dws.1 and 2 were examined and<\/p>\n
Ext.D1 was marked. Ext.C1 was marked as court exhibit. The learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate, on considering the evidence, convicted the accused under<\/p>\n
Section 138 of the N.I. Act and she was sentenced to undergo S.I. for a<\/p>\n
period of six months and       to pay a sum of Rs.70,000\/-      to the<\/p>\n
complainant as compensation. Against that conviction and sentence,<\/p>\n
the accused filed Crl.A.No. 118 of 2000 before the Vth Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Court, Ernakulam, which was allowed and the conviction ad<\/p>\n
sentence was set aside and the case was remanded to the lower court<\/p>\n
for fresh disposal for taking further evidence regarding genuineness of<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No. 1156 of 2002<\/p>\n
                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
the signature contained in Ext.D1 and regarding the source of the<\/p>\n
complainant for raising the money alleged to have been lent to the<\/p>\n
accused. Against that judgment the complainant filed this Crl. R.P.<\/p>\n
      4.   Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
      5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the<\/p>\n
lower appellate court failed to notice the fact that it was the specific<\/p>\n
case of the complainant that the accused herself had actually signed the<\/p>\n
cheque before him and the burden is on the accused to show that the<\/p>\n
said signature on the cheque is not put by her. The learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner submitted that the lower appellate court went<\/p>\n
wrong in attributing the entire burden on the complainant to prove the<\/p>\n
source of income and consideration,         which is against the legal<\/p>\n
presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act. The learned<\/p>\n
counsel further submitted that the lower appellate court failed to notice<\/p>\n
the fact that no reply was sent by the accused to the notice issued by the<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No. 1156 of 2002<\/p>\n
                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
complainant. The learned counsel for the first respondent supported the<\/p>\n
judgment of the lower appellate court to some extent.<\/p>\n
      6. When the complainant was examined as PW1, he deposed that<\/p>\n
the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.70,000\/- from him and executed<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 cheque dt.25.11.1997 for that amount. When that cheque was<\/p>\n
sent for collection, it was dishonoured for the reason ‘funds insufficient’<\/p>\n
in the account of the accused. Ext.P2 is the memorandum of dishonour<\/p>\n
dt.11.12.1997 and Ext.P3 is the copy of notice dt.16.12.1997. Ext.P4 is<\/p>\n
the postal receipt and Ext.P5 is the acknowledgment card showing that<\/p>\n
the accused received the notice on 17.12.1997. The complaint is filed<\/p>\n
on 6.1.1998. Hence it is clear that the complainant has filed complaint<\/p>\n
after complying with all the legal formalities.<\/p>\n
      7. Ext.C1 is the certified extract of the account of the accused,<\/p>\n
which shows that on 11.12.1997 when Ext.P1 cheque came up for<\/p>\n
collection there     was only Rs.265\/- outstanding in the said account.<\/p>\n
The accused has no case that there was sufficient funds in her account<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No. 1156 of 2002<\/p>\n
                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
when Ext.P1 cheque came up for collection.        She has not cross<\/p>\n
examined PW1 on that point. Hence it is proved from Exts.P2 and<\/p>\n
Ext.C1 that Ext.P1 cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds<\/p>\n
in the account of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
      8. When examined as DW1, the case of the accused is that she<\/p>\n
had not borrowed any amount from the complainant and she has not<\/p>\n
issued Ext. P1 cheque to the complainant and that Ext.P1 is a cheque<\/p>\n
lost from her, which was misused by the complainant.<\/p>\n
      9. DW2 is the Branch Manager of Amballoor Janatha Service<\/p>\n
Co-operative Bank, Kanjiramattom branch.        He deposed that the<\/p>\n
accused has an account with his bank. Ext.C1 is the certified extract of<\/p>\n
the said account. He produced the specimen signature card of the<\/p>\n
accused, copy of which is Ext.D1. He deposed that the signature of the<\/p>\n
accused in the specimen signature card and that in Ext.P1 are entirely<\/p>\n
different. He got intimation from the accused that two cheque leaves<\/p>\n
belonging to her were lost. Intimation was given by her on 12.11.1998.<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No. 1156 of 2002<\/p>\n
                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
However, those two cheques have not come up for collection. No<\/p>\n
complaint is received from the accused regarding the loss of Ext.P1<\/p>\n
cheque.\n<\/p>\n
     10. According to PW1, the accused signed Ext.P1 cheque in his<\/p>\n
presence. DW2 admitted that Ext.P1 cheque was issued from his bank.<\/p>\n
DW1 admitted that she lost only one cheque and she intimated the<\/p>\n
matter to the bank.    She admitted that she received Ext.P3 notice<\/p>\n
regarding dishonour of the cheque, but she did not send any reply. If<\/p>\n
the case of the accused was true, the accused should have sent a reply<\/p>\n
explaining her case.   DW2 deposed that the cheques alleged to have<\/p>\n
been lost by the accused have not come up for collection in that bank.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the version of DW1 that she lost Ext.P1 cheque and the same<\/p>\n
was intimated to the bank is false.\n<\/p>\n
     11. On appreciating the testimony of PW1 in the light of the<\/p>\n
defence evidence, the learned Magistrate is perfectly justified in finding<\/p>\n
that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the accused. Since the execution of<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No. 1156 of 2002<\/p>\n
                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.P1 cheque is proved, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139<\/p>\n
of the N.I. Act would apply and the burden is on the accused to rebut<\/p>\n
that presumption. The evidence adduced from the side of the accused is<\/p>\n
not sufficient to rebut that presumption.\n<\/p>\n
      12.   The finding of the lower appellate court that in all<\/p>\n
probabilities a person having a balance of Rs.300\/- in his credit will<\/p>\n
not issue a cheque for Rs.70,000\/- to his creditor because such an act<\/p>\n
would expose him to penal consequences under Section 138 of the N.I.<\/p>\n
Act, is erroneous. It has come out in evidence that the complainant<\/p>\n
advanced Rs.70,000\/-      when the accused was accompanied by her<\/p>\n
father, who is well known to the complainant, on the assurance of<\/p>\n
returning the same on getting the grant for the S.S.I. unit.<\/p>\n
      13. The order of remand passed by the court below for further<\/p>\n
evidence regarding the genuineness of Ext.D1 and regarding the source<\/p>\n
of the complainant for raising the money lent to the accused is totally<\/p>\n
unwarranted, since the same is under the clutches of the presumption<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No. 1156 of 2002<\/p>\n
                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
under Sections 118 ad 139 of the N.I. Act. and the burden to rebut the<\/p>\n
same    is on the    accused     by adducing evidence.     Therefore the<\/p>\n
judgment of the appellate court remanding the case to the court below<\/p>\n
has to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
      14. Since the complainant has proved all the ingredients of the<\/p>\n
offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate is fully justified in convicting the accused under Section 138<\/p>\n
of the N.I. Act and the same is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
      15.     In the decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu v.<\/p>\n
Sayed Babalal H<\/a> (2010(2) KHC 428 (SC)), it was held that in a<\/p>\n
case of dishonour of cheques, compensatory aspect of the remedy<\/p>\n
should be given priority over the punitive aspect. Considering the<\/p>\n
facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that<\/p>\n
sentencing the accused to pay a fine of Rs.70,000\/- would meet the<\/p>\n
ends of justice. The said fine shall be paid as compensation under<\/p>\n
Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner is permitted<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No. 1156 of 2002<\/p>\n
                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
either to deposit the said fine amount before the Court below or<\/p>\n
directly pay the compensation to the complainant within six<\/p>\n
months from today and produce a memo to that effect before the<\/p>\n
trial Court, in case of direct payment. If she fails to deposit or pay<\/p>\n
the said amount within the aforesaid period, she shall suffer simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence.<\/p>\n
      16. In the result, this Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment<\/p>\n
in Crl.A.No. 118 of 2000 on the file of the Vth Additiona; Sessions<\/p>\n
Court, Ernakulam remanding the case to the court below is set aside<\/p>\n
and the conviction of the accused in C.C. 9 of 1998 on the file of the<\/p>\n
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Ernakulam under Section 138<\/p>\n
of the N.I. Act is confirmed and the sentence is modified as above.<\/p>\n
                                      (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
\n                                                     Judge
\ntm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Jayakumar V.K. vs Sasikala @ Latha on 26 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1156 of 2002() 1. JAYAKUMAR V.K. S\/O. KUTTAPPAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. SASIKALA @ LATHA, AGED 34 YEARS, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE For Petitioner :SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU For Respondent […]<\/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-170653","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJayakumar V.K. vs Sasikala @ Latha on 26 November, 2010 - 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\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jayakumar V.K. vs Sasikala @ Latha on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-26T18:34:11+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\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jayakumar V.K. vs Sasikala @ Latha on 26 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-26T18:34:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1571,\"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\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Jayakumar V.K. vs Sasikala @ Latha on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-26T18:34:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jayakumar V.K. vs Sasikala @ Latha on 26 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Jayakumar V.K. vs Sasikala @ Latha on 26 November, 2010 - 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\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jayakumar V.K. vs Sasikala @ Latha on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-26T18:34:11+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\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jayakumar V.K. vs Sasikala @ Latha on 26 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-26T18:34:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010"},"wordCount":1571,"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\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010","name":"Jayakumar V.K. vs Sasikala @ Latha on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-26T18:34:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayakumar-v-k-vs-sasikala-latha-on-26-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jayakumar V.K. vs Sasikala @ Latha on 26 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/170653","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=170653"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170653\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=170653"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=170653"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=170653"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}