{"id":18488,"date":"2009-02-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009"},"modified":"2016-12-22T10:47:52","modified_gmt":"2016-12-22T05:17:52","slug":"merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Merry vs Paulose on 3 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Merry vs Paulose on 3 February, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMat.Appeal.No. 39 of 2004()\n\n\n1. MERRY, AGED 36, D\/O. MATHAPPAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. PAULOSE, AGED 39 YEARS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.FRANCO T.J.\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.K.ANIL\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR\n\n Dated :03\/02\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                P.R. RAMAN & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.\n             ---------------------------------------------------------\n                    MAT. APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2004\n             ---------------------------------------------------------\n                 Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Ravikumar J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      The petitioner in O.P. No.526 of 1999 on the file of the Family<\/p>\n
Court, Thrissur is the appellant herein. The said Original Petition was<\/p>\n
filed under Section 32 of the Divorce Act, 1869 for a decree of restitution<\/p>\n
of conjugal rights.     As per order dated 7.2.2004, the Family Court<\/p>\n
dismissed the Original Petition and this appeal is filed against the said<\/p>\n
order of dismissal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2. Both the appellant and the respondent are Christians. Their<\/p>\n
marriage was solemnised on 18.1.1988 in accordance with the Christian<\/p>\n
customary rites. The case of the appellant\/petitioner is that even before<\/p>\n
completion of one year of their marriage, the respondent began to ill treat<\/p>\n
her.   According to the appellant, on 13.5.1989, she was taken to the<\/p>\n
parental home by her father and thereafter neither the respondent nor his<\/p>\n
relatives came to take her back. The further case of the appellant is that<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.39 \/2004               2<\/span><\/p>\n
within one month thereafter, her father as also her kith and kin entreated<\/p>\n
him to resume cohabitation, but he was not prepared for the same. When<\/p>\n
their earnest efforts turned futile, they had even enquired       about the<\/p>\n
possibility for a divorce. Further, it is contended that even the attempts<\/p>\n
made by the Priest of Kuzhur Church did not yield any             effect and<\/p>\n
thereafter on 12.4.1999, she caused issuance of a registered notice.<\/p>\n
However, that too did not evoke any response.            It was in the said<\/p>\n
circumstances that she approached the Family Court for restitution of<\/p>\n
conjugal rights.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      3. The respondent contested the matter contending that the petition<\/p>\n
lacks bona fides and hence not maintainable. According to him, he never<\/p>\n
expressed any disinterest in the marital life with the appellant. He had also<\/p>\n
denied the contentions regarding disharmony          between them and the<\/p>\n
attempts on the part of her father and also her relatives to set right their<\/p>\n
married life.      According to the respondent, after the marriage, they<\/p>\n
resided together for about three months and even during such short stay,<\/p>\n
the appellant used to complain that the respondent did not have enough<\/p>\n
personality to be her husband. He had also denied the allegation that he<\/p>\n
was quarrelsome and, according to him, the respondent left his house and<\/p>\n
company on her own volition. His case is that she had never sought his<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.39 \/2004                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
consent for leaving the home and for living separately and that his request<\/p>\n
for resuming cohabitation was not responded favourably by herself. He<\/p>\n
contended that the Original Petition was filed belatedly and it has now<\/p>\n
become impossible to resume cohabitation. In short, his contention is that<\/p>\n
the appellant has withdrawn from his society without any sufficient reason<\/p>\n
and the intervention and efforts on the part of the mediators on his side<\/p>\n
did not yield any desired effect and the marital tie has broken down<\/p>\n
irretrievably. Based on the pleadings on either side, the following points<\/p>\n
were formulated for consideration by the Family Court:<\/p>\n
             i. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a
\n                 decree for restitution of conjugal rights?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             ii. What is the order as to costs?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PWs.1 to 4 and<\/p>\n
documents Exts.A1 to A5 on the side of the appellant herein.           The<\/p>\n
respondent got himself examined as RW.1.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       4.   The marriage between the appellant and respondent was<\/p>\n
solemnised on 18.1.1988. Admittedly, on 13..5.1989 the appellant was<\/p>\n
taken to her paternal home from the matrimonial home by her father. Her<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.39 \/2004                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
case is that since then the respondent did not take her back home. It is a<\/p>\n
fact that by the time the said Original Petition was filed for restitution of<\/p>\n
conjugal rights, ten years have elapsed.       The Family Court found that<\/p>\n
absolutely no reasonable or cogent reasons were given for the inordinate<\/p>\n
delay in filing the Original Petition. Though the appellant\/petitioner<\/p>\n
contended that several attempts had been made for resuming cohabitation<\/p>\n
prior to the filing of the said Original Petition, she failed to prove the<\/p>\n
same. A registered notice was issued to the respondent for resumption of<\/p>\n
cohabitation only on 12.4.1999. Ext.A2 is the copy of the same. In this<\/p>\n
context it is to be noted that the case of the appellant is that the respondent<\/p>\n
was trying to contract another marriage and the same would make the delay<\/p>\n
on the part of the appellant more unreasonable. It is noteworthy that in the<\/p>\n
Ext.A2 as well, it was admitted that on 13.5.1989, it was her father who<\/p>\n
took her from the marital home. Admittedly, since 13.5.1989 there was no<\/p>\n
resumption of cohabitation.     After appreciating the evidence adduced by<\/p>\n
both the sides, the Family Court found that the long delay in filing the<\/p>\n
petition for resumption of cohabitation and the factum that the appellant<\/p>\n
left the marital home on her own accord would mitigate against the plea<\/p>\n
for restitution of conjugal rights. The Court also observed that merely<\/p>\n
because the respondent had never moved the law, the same could not be<\/p>\n
taken to mean that he has been culpably neglecting the appellant\/petitioner.<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.39 \/2004                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
Obviously, the appellant\/petitioner did not assign any reasonable excuse as<\/p>\n
to why she had withdrawn from the society of the respondent and started<\/p>\n
living separately. It was after carefully considering the evidence on record<\/p>\n
that the Family Court declined to issue an order under Section 32 of the<\/p>\n
Divorce Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      5. The admitted facts are that the marriage between the parties was<\/p>\n
solemnised on 18.1.1988 and that the appellant was taken from her<\/p>\n
matrimonial home to her parental home by her own father on 13.5.1989. It<\/p>\n
is needless to say that in a case for restitution of conjugal rights, the initial<\/p>\n
burden of proving reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the society of<\/p>\n
the other shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society. In<\/p>\n
this case, going by the admitted facts, it is evident that it was the appellant<\/p>\n
herein who withdrew from the society of the respondent\/husband on<\/p>\n
13.5.1989.    That apart, she failed to show any reasonable excuse for<\/p>\n
withdrawing from his society. As stated earlier, the petition for restitution<\/p>\n
of conjugal rights was filed by the appellant after a lapse of about ten years<\/p>\n
since her leaving the matrimonial home.        Almost another ten years have<\/p>\n
elapsed since filing of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The<\/p>\n
stand of the respondent that the marital tie has broken down irretrievably<\/p>\n
would further nullify even the remote possibility for resuming<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.39 \/2004                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
cohabitation. As held by the Family Court, we are also not satisfied about<\/p>\n
the truthfulness of the statement made in the petition for restitution of<\/p>\n
conjugal rights filed by the appellant herein.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       6. In view of the matter, we find no reason to disagree with the<\/p>\n
finding of the Family Court that the case on hand is not a fit case to be<\/p>\n
allowed under Section 32 of the Divorce Act. The conclusion arrived at<\/p>\n
by the Family Court and the reasons given therein do not suffer from any<\/p>\n
legal infirmity or illegality warranting any interference.<\/p>\n
       In the circumstances, the Matrimonial Appeal is dismissed, however,<\/p>\n
without any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                       (P.R. RAMAN)
\n                                           JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                       (C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
\n                                              JUDGE<\/p>\n
sp\/<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.39 \/2004    7<\/span><\/p>\n
                              P.R. RAMAN
\n                                      &
\n                              C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
                              MAT.APPEAL NO.39\/2004<\/p>\n
                                   JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                              3rd February, 2009<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.39 \/2004    8<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Merry vs Paulose on 3 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Mat.Appeal.No. 39 of 2004() 1. MERRY, AGED 36, D\/O. MATHAPPAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. PAULOSE, AGED 39 YEARS, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.FRANCO T.J. For Respondent :SRI.P.K.ANIL The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR […]<\/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-18488","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMerry vs Paulose on 3 February, 2009 - 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\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Merry vs Paulose on 3 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-22T05:17:52+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Merry vs Paulose on 3 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-22T05:17:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1214,\"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\\\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Merry vs Paulose on 3 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-22T05:17:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Merry vs Paulose on 3 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Merry vs Paulose on 3 February, 2009 - 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\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Merry vs Paulose on 3 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-22T05:17:52+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Merry vs Paulose on 3 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-22T05:17:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009"},"wordCount":1214,"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\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009","name":"Merry vs Paulose on 3 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-22T05:17:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/merry-vs-paulose-on-3-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Merry vs Paulose on 3 February, 2009"}]},{"@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\/18488","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=18488"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18488\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18488"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18488"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18488"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}