{"id":182174,"date":"2008-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008"},"modified":"2018-04-01T13:02:30","modified_gmt":"2018-04-01T07:32:30","slug":"gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"Gangadharan @ Kannan vs Geetha on 4 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Gangadharan @ Kannan vs Geetha on 4 April, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRP(Family Court) No. 96 of 2008()\n\n\n1. GANGADHARAN @ KANNAN, AGED 39 YEARS\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. GEETHA, AGED 25 YEARS, D\/O.KRISHNANKUTTY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. HARITHA, AGED 5 1\/2 YEARS, D\/O.GEETHA\n\n3. HARI KRISHNAN, AGED 3 YEARS, S\/O.GEETHA\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.H.BADARUDDIN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :04\/04\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                           R. BASANT, J.\n            ````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n                    R.P.F.C. No. 96 OF 2008\n            ````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n              Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008\n\n                              O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
           The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by an order<\/p>\n
passed by the Family Court under section 125 Cr.P.C. directing<\/p>\n
payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000\/- for the first<\/p>\n
claimant wife and Rs.500\/- each for the 2nd and 3rd claimants,<\/p>\n
minor children aged 4= years and 2 years respectively.<\/p>\n
      2.   That the marriage took place on 8.6.2000 is admitted.<\/p>\n
Paternity of the 2nd petitioner\/1st child is admitted. Paternity of<\/p>\n
the 2nd child\/3rd petitioner is disputed. That child was born on<\/p>\n
30.11.03. The marriage was dissolved by an order of court on<\/p>\n
5.10.05.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   The claimants staked the claim for maintenance<\/p>\n
asserting that they are unable to maintain themselves and that<\/p>\n
the petitioner having sufficient means is neglecting and refusing<\/p>\n
to pay maintenance to them.            The claim was filed after the<\/p>\n
divorce on 4.7.06. The petitioner raised the contention that the<\/p>\n
first claimant wife was living in adultery when the marriage was<\/p>\n
RPFC.96\/08.\n<\/p>\n
                                 : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
subsisting and that even thereafter she is living in adultery. It<\/p>\n
was contended that she is not hence entitled for maintenance.<\/p>\n
As stated earlier, the 2nd claimant’s claim was not disputed.<\/p>\n
There was only dispute about the quantum so far as the 2nd<\/p>\n
claimant is concerned. Regarding the 3rd claimant\/2nd child, it<\/p>\n
was contended that the said child was not that of the<\/p>\n
petitioner and that such child must have been begotten in the<\/p>\n
illicit relationship of the first claimant wife with some other<\/p>\n
persons.\n<\/p>\n
       4.     Parties went to trial on these contentions and the<\/p>\n
first claimant and the petitioner examined themselves as PW1<\/p>\n
and CPW1. Exts.P1 to P3 were marked on the side of the<\/p>\n
claimant.     Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the<\/p>\n
petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
       5.     The learned judge of the Family Court, on an<\/p>\n
anxious evaluation of all the relevant inputs, came to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that all the claimants are entitled for maintenance.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the impugned order was passed directing<\/p>\n
payment of maintenance at the rates mentioned above.<\/p>\n
RPFC.96\/08.\n<\/p>\n
                              : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
     6.    The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the<\/p>\n
impugned order.       What is his grievance?    The    learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner, first of all, contends that the<\/p>\n
direction to pay maintenance to the wife is not justified. She<\/p>\n
having lived in adultery prior to the marriage and during the<\/p>\n
currency of the marriage and continues to live in adultery after<\/p>\n
the divorce, it is contended.\n<\/p>\n
     7.    I am afraid this contention cannot legally stand. It<\/p>\n
is well established that adultery is not a ground on which the<\/p>\n
claim of a divorced wife can be resisted by a divorced<\/p>\n
husband. The law on the point is considered in detail and<\/p>\n
referred to in Sajeev Kumar Vs. P.Dhanya and another<\/p>\n
[2008 (2) KHC 118].        The earlier binding precedent in<\/p>\n
Valsarajan Vs. Saraswathy [2003 (2) KLT 548] was referred<\/p>\n
to in detail. Adultery is not an indiscretion which a divorced<\/p>\n
wife can ever commit against her former husband. The fact<\/p>\n
that the woman lived in adultery while the marriage was<\/p>\n
current or that she leads an immoral life after divorce are not<\/p>\n
both sufficient grounds by themselves to resist the claim for<\/p>\n
RPFC.96\/08.\n<\/p>\n
                                : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
maintenance of the divorced wife. The said contention must<\/p>\n
hence fall to the ground.\n<\/p>\n
      8.   We then come to the claim of the 2nd child\/3rd<\/p>\n
petitioner. The marriage took place on 8.6.2000. The divorce<\/p>\n
took place on 5.10.05. The 3rd claimant\/2nd child was born on<\/p>\n
30.11.03.     The presumption under section 112 of the<\/p>\n
Evidence Act applies with vigour and unless non-access is<\/p>\n
proved satisfactorily, the petitioner cannot avoid the liability to<\/p>\n
pay maintenance.      To substantiate his contention of non-<\/p>\n
access, the petitioner examined only himself. The learned<\/p>\n
judge of the Family Court held that non-access has not been<\/p>\n
proved.    Relying on Exts.P1 and P2 photographs wherein<\/p>\n
admittedly the petitioner was standing along with his wife<\/p>\n
carrying the said child whose paternity he now disputed, the<\/p>\n
court came to the conclusion that the plea of non-access is<\/p>\n
unacceptable.    I find absolutely nothing wrong in the said<\/p>\n
conclusion of the learned judge of the Family Court. Non-<\/p>\n
access has not been proved in the manner in which it is<\/p>\n
expected to be proved in the light of the conclusive<\/p>\n
RPFC.96\/08.\n<\/p>\n
                              : 5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
presumption under section 112 of the Evidence Act which can<\/p>\n
be rebutted only in the manner contemplated under section 4<\/p>\n
of the Evidence Act read with section 112. Non-access has<\/p>\n
been proved satisfactorily. The said contention cannot hence<\/p>\n
help the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
      9.   The quantum of maintenance fixed is found to be<\/p>\n
absolutely justified.   Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of<\/p>\n
superintendence and correction, I am not persuaded to<\/p>\n
interfere with the quantum of maintenance fixed. The meagre<\/p>\n
amounts of Rs.1,000\/- for the wife and Rs.500\/- each for the<\/p>\n
children cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate to<\/p>\n
the means of the petitioner or the needs of the claimants.<\/p>\n
That contention cannot also hence succeed.<\/p>\n
      10. Finally, it is contended that the petitioner may be<\/p>\n
given an opportunity to adduce further evidence. What is the<\/p>\n
evidence which the petitioner wants to adduce? According to<\/p>\n
the petitioner, he wants to prove A1 agreement which has<\/p>\n
been produced before this Court in revision and which was<\/p>\n
not produced before the court below at any time. That is an<\/p>\n
RPFC.96\/08.\n<\/p>\n
                                : 6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
agreement dated 1.7.99 whereunder the first claimant is<\/p>\n
alleged to have entered into an agreement with another to live<\/p>\n
with him.     It is thereafter that the marriage between the<\/p>\n
petitioner and the 1st claimant took place on 8.6.2000. In any<\/p>\n
view of the matter, the agreement dated 1.7.99 cannot at all<\/p>\n
help the petitioner to contend that the wife was living in<\/p>\n
adultery during matrimony which commenced long later or<\/p>\n
that the child born in that wedlock is illegitimate and not his.<\/p>\n
In these circumstances, this contention cannot also succeed.<\/p>\n
      11. Additional evidence in revision cannot be received<\/p>\n
unless compelling reasons are there. It cannot be received<\/p>\n
as a matter of course. The document must be vitally relevant<\/p>\n
and helpful to render the decision on the disputed question.<\/p>\n
There must be valid and compelling reasons to explain non-<\/p>\n
production before the court below at the appropriate stage.<\/p>\n
Neither circumstances are available here.<\/p>\n
      12. Counsel contends that the petitioner will be put to<\/p>\n
great hardship. If the petitioner has a contention still that the<\/p>\n
2nd child\/3rd claimant is not born to him and he is not the father<\/p>\n
RPFC.96\/08.\n<\/p>\n
                                : 7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
of the child then the petitioner will have to seek his relief of<\/p>\n
appropriate declaration from the civil court.       If he feels<\/p>\n
confident that he will be able to adduce appropriate evidence<\/p>\n
to rebut the conclusive presumption under section 112, he<\/p>\n
has that option under law. An order passed under section<\/p>\n
125 Cr.P.C., it is trite may at worst only cast a shadow on the<\/p>\n
disputed status of the parties and it is open to a party to go to<\/p>\n
the civil court to get the shadow removed by seeking<\/p>\n
appropriate declaration. If so advised, the petitioner has only<\/p>\n
that final option before him.\n<\/p>\n
      13. Lastly and finally, it is prayed that some further time<\/p>\n
may be granted to pay the amounts which have already<\/p>\n
become payable. I do not intend to express any opinion on<\/p>\n
this aspect. It is for the petitioner to approach the Family<\/p>\n
Court and seek appropriate relief\/accommodation, after<\/p>\n
proving his bona fides after making substantial payments.<\/p>\n
      14. In the result, this R.P.F.C. is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                             (R.BASANT, JUDGE)
\naks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Gangadharan @ Kannan vs Geetha on 4 April, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RP(Family Court) No. 96 of 2008() 1. GANGADHARAN @ KANNAN, AGED 39 YEARS … Petitioner Vs 1. GEETHA, AGED 25 YEARS, D\/O.KRISHNANKUTTY … Respondent 2. HARITHA, AGED 5 1\/2 YEARS, D\/O.GEETHA 3. HARI KRISHNAN, AGED […]<\/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-182174","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGangadharan @ Kannan vs Geetha on 4 April, 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\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gangadharan @ Kannan vs Geetha on 4 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-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=\"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-01T07:32:30+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\\\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gangadharan @ Kannan vs Geetha on 4 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-01T07:32:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1230,\"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\\\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008\",\"name\":\"Gangadharan @ Kannan vs Geetha on 4 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-01T07:32:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gangadharan @ Kannan vs Geetha on 4 April, 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":"Gangadharan @ Kannan vs Geetha on 4 April, 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\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gangadharan @ Kannan vs Geetha on 4 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-01T07:32:30+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\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gangadharan @ Kannan vs Geetha on 4 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-01T07:32:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008"},"wordCount":1230,"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\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008","name":"Gangadharan @ Kannan vs Geetha on 4 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-01T07:32:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-kannan-vs-geetha-on-4-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gangadharan @ Kannan vs Geetha on 4 April, 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\/182174","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=182174"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182174\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=182174"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=182174"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=182174"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}