{"id":188204,"date":"2008-11-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008"},"modified":"2018-09-18T16:45:24","modified_gmt":"2018-09-18T11:15:24","slug":"v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"V.Bindu vs S. Krishnankutty on 6 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
V.Bindu vs S. Krishnankutty on 6 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRPFC.No. 326 of 2008()\n\n\n1. V.BINDU, D\/O.OMANA, BINDU BHAVAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. S. KRISHNANKUTTY, S\/O.SREEDHARA PANIKER\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.DILIP MOHAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :06\/11\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                             R.BASANT, J\n                     ------------------------------------\n                    R.P.F.C. No.326 of 2008\n                     -------------------------------------\n            Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008\n\n                                 ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
     Petitioner, whose claim for maintenance under Section 125<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C against her husband was rejected by the Family Court,<\/p>\n
has come before this Court with this revision petition.<\/p>\n
     2.    Marriage is admitted.                    Separate residence is<\/p>\n
conceded. There is no offer to maintain the wife on condition<\/p>\n
that she lives with him.           In these circumstances the only<\/p>\n
questions that survive for consideration are<\/p>\n
     i)    Whether the husband is a person having sufficient<\/p>\n
means and<\/p>\n
     ii)   Whether the wife is unable to maintain herself.<\/p>\n
That no amount of maintenance has been paid to the wife is<\/p>\n
conceded.\n<\/p>\n
     3.    There was a contention that the wife is not unable to<\/p>\n
maintain herself. The wife on oath asserted that she is unable to<\/p>\n
maintain herself. It is trite following the dictum in Rajathi v.<\/p>\n
C.Ganesan (A.I.R<\/a> 99 (S.C) 2374] that an assertion on oath by<\/p>\n
the wife that she is unable to maintain herself would shift the<\/p>\n
R.P.F.C. No.326 of 2008         2<\/span><\/p>\n
burden to the respondent\/husband to show that she is not<\/p>\n
entitled to maintain herself. The husband contends that she is<\/p>\n
employed as a post woman.        Employment as a post woman<\/p>\n
cannot be kept a secret by any one.        There will be proper<\/p>\n
documents to show if a person is employed as a post woman.<\/p>\n
The claimant\/wife asserted on oath that she was temporarily<\/p>\n
employed as a post woman. She does not have that employment<\/p>\n
now.     No attempt appears to have been taken by the<\/p>\n
respondent\/husband to show that the petitioner is as a matter of<\/p>\n
fact employed now as a post woman. The cross examination of<\/p>\n
PW1 shows the apologetic nature of the contention about the<\/p>\n
employment of the petitioner as a post woman.<\/p>\n
      4.   The next contention that the wife runs a tailoring shop<\/p>\n
and gets an income of Rs.8,000\/- from such an income earning<\/p>\n
activity. The wife deposed that she has no shop and that she<\/p>\n
does not know tailoring. Not a semblance of contra evidence is<\/p>\n
adduced to show that the wife knows tailoring; runs a tailoring<\/p>\n
shop and derives any income therefrom.\n<\/p>\n
      5.   The wife admitted in the course of evidence that she<\/p>\n
has a plot of 50 cents and she resides in the building in that plot.<\/p>\n
I have gone through the cross examination in detail. There is not<\/p>\n
R.P.F.C. No.326 of 2008         3<\/span><\/p>\n
even a semblance of specific suggestion that any portion of that<\/p>\n
building is rented out and she derives any income from such<\/p>\n
building. There is not even an assertion or suggestion that there<\/p>\n
is any income deriving by her from that 50 cents plot and<\/p>\n
building.\n<\/p>\n
     6.    Except this, no other circumstances are there to show<\/p>\n
that the claimant\/wife has any source of income as to take her<\/p>\n
out of the sweep of the expression “woman unable to maintain<\/p>\n
herself”.\n<\/p>\n
     7.    A very surprising and interesting argument is pressed<\/p>\n
into service. I note that the learned Judge of the Family Court<\/p>\n
has accepted the same also.         The wife in an attempt to<\/p>\n
substantiate her claim for a larger amount as maintenance<\/p>\n
contended that she and children put together need an amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.8,000\/- for maintenance. From this evidence it is deduced<\/p>\n
that she now spends Rs.8,000\/- and therefore she must have<\/p>\n
income to spend such amount of Rs.8,000\/-. That argument and<\/p>\n
contention borders on perversity. The wife asserted that she has<\/p>\n
no employment. She asserted that she is living on the charity of<\/p>\n
her relatives. Merely because, she asserted and made a tall<\/p>\n
clam that, she needs an income of Rs.8,000\/-, it is unreasonable ,<\/p>\n
R.P.F.C. No.326 of 2008        4<\/span><\/p>\n
irrational and puerile to jump to the conclusion that she has<\/p>\n
income earning activity and gets at least such amounts from<\/p>\n
such activity.\n<\/p>\n
      8.   I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the<\/p>\n
conclusion of the court below on the question as to whether the<\/p>\n
wife is unable to maintain herself is grossly erroneous and the<\/p>\n
same warrants revisional interference.\n<\/p>\n
      9.   It is contended that the husband is not having<\/p>\n
sufficient means. Admittedly he was employed in the C.R.P.F.<\/p>\n
He claimed that he had taken voluntary retirement because of<\/p>\n
his illness. There is nothing to show that voluntary retirement<\/p>\n
was taken on health grounds.\n<\/p>\n
      10.    Admittedly he has received terminal benefits. The<\/p>\n
wife claims that a huge amount of about Rs.4.5. lakhs has been<\/p>\n
received by him. The husband admits that he has received such<\/p>\n
amount. But he does not volunteer or reveal to the court the<\/p>\n
amounts.     Going by his evidence he had received “some<\/p>\n
amounts” which he significantly does not reveal to the court.<\/p>\n
The stand taken by the respondent in the light of the evidence<\/p>\n
tendered by the claimant\/wife must lead the Court to the natural,<\/p>\n
reasonable and probable conclusion that the husband must have<\/p>\n
R.P.F.C. No.326 of 2008         5<\/span><\/p>\n
received sufficiently huge amount by way of terminal benefits<\/p>\n
on his voluntary retirement.\n<\/p>\n
      11. He admittedly gets a pension exceeding Rs.2,000\/- per<\/p>\n
mensem. Though there is an assertion that he is having income<\/p>\n
from employment as a security guard, that is denied. No better<\/p>\n
evidence is produced. He is a 45 year old former constable of<\/p>\n
the C.R.P.F who has taken voluntary retirement. The assertion<\/p>\n
of the wife that he has taken up post retirement employment<\/p>\n
does not at all appear to me to be improbable. The husband<\/p>\n
relies on certain medical records to show that he suffers from<\/p>\n
ailments.   But that is totally insufficient to assume that the<\/p>\n
husband has not pursued any productive employment and<\/p>\n
utilisation of time which he has in abundance as a retired police<\/p>\n
constable. Reasonable inferences are permissible for a prudent<\/p>\n
mind and a Court, under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, must<\/p>\n
certainly adopt the standards of a prudent person. I find no<\/p>\n
merit in the contention that the respondent\/husband has no<\/p>\n
income earning activity whatsoever post retirement.<\/p>\n
      12. A strange contention is raised that the wife is able<\/p>\n
bodied and therefore she must be assumed and presumed to be<\/p>\n
able to maintain herself. Less said about this contention, the<\/p>\n
R.P.F.C. No.326 of 2008          6<\/span><\/p>\n
better. It is true that while considering the question of liability<\/p>\n
of the husband\/father to maintain his spouse\/children Courts<\/p>\n
have taken the view that being able bodied is itself to be<\/p>\n
reckoned as a reasonable indication that the man has sufficient<\/p>\n
means.    He is expected to o at least manual work, earn his<\/p>\n
livelihood and support his wife and children.       But that logic<\/p>\n
cannot obviously be applied in the case of a woman.            The<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C are initiated to help and<\/p>\n
ameliorate the grievances of the lesser fortunate half of the<\/p>\n
Indian polity.     I am unable to agree that the alleged<\/p>\n
circumstance that the wife has an able body is by itself sufficient<\/p>\n
to conclude that she is not unable to maintain herself.<\/p>\n
      13. I am satisfied that the finding that the wife is not<\/p>\n
entitled for any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C is totally<\/p>\n
erroneous and does not warrant revisional interference.<\/p>\n
      14. I should remind myself of the nature, quality and<\/p>\n
contours of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and<\/p>\n
correction. It is trite that a court of revision should not choose<\/p>\n
to lightly invoke such revisional jurisdiction of superintendence<\/p>\n
and correction. Unless the findings are so grossly incorrect,<\/p>\n
unreasonable, irrational and unjust, the revisional jurisdiction<\/p>\n
R.P.F.C. No.326 of 2008         7<\/span><\/p>\n
shall not be invoked. I am satisfied that the finding that the wife<\/p>\n
is not unable to maintain herself suffers from the vice of<\/p>\n
irrationality and unreasonableness. It would be abdication of<\/p>\n
jurisdiction   not  to   invoke    the   revisional   powers    of<\/p>\n
superintendence and correction in the facts of this case.<\/p>\n
      15. I take the view that the wife is entitled for<\/p>\n
maintenance from the respondent\/husband.           I am in these<\/p>\n
circumstances satisfied that the maintenance deserves to be<\/p>\n
granted @ Rs.1,000\/- per mensem to her. I direct such payment<\/p>\n
under Section 125 Cr.P.C from the date of the petition, ie. from<\/p>\n
26.12.2002. The admitted receipt of lumsum terminal benefit<\/p>\n
persuades me to hold that the discretion to direct payment of<\/p>\n
maintenance must be exercised in favour of the claimant and<\/p>\n
hence I direct payment of maintenance from the date of the<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
      16. This Revision Petition is, in these circumstances,<\/p>\n
allowed to the above extent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                           (R.BASANT, JUDGE)
\nrtr\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court V.Bindu vs S. Krishnankutty on 6 November, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RPFC.No. 326 of 2008() 1. V.BINDU, D\/O.OMANA, BINDU BHAVAN … Petitioner Vs 1. S. KRISHNANKUTTY, S\/O.SREEDHARA PANIKER … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.DILIP MOHAN For Respondent :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP The Hon’ble MR. Justice R.BASANT Dated :06\/11\/2008 O R D […]<\/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-188204","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nV.Bindu vs S. Krishnankutty on 6 November, 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\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.Bindu vs S. Krishnankutty on 6 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-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=\"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-18T11:15:24+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\\\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.Bindu vs S. Krishnankutty on 6 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-18T11:15:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1410,\"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\\\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008\",\"name\":\"V.Bindu vs S. Krishnankutty on 6 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-18T11:15:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.Bindu vs S. Krishnankutty on 6 November, 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":"V.Bindu vs S. Krishnankutty on 6 November, 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\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.Bindu vs S. Krishnankutty on 6 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-18T11:15:24+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\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.Bindu vs S. Krishnankutty on 6 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-18T11:15:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008"},"wordCount":1410,"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\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008","name":"V.Bindu vs S. Krishnankutty on 6 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-18T11:15:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-bindu-vs-s-krishnankutty-on-6-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.Bindu vs S. Krishnankutty on 6 November, 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\/188204","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=188204"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188204\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188204"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188204"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188204"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}