{"id":191308,"date":"2006-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006"},"modified":"2016-01-25T14:24:57","modified_gmt":"2016-01-25T08:54:57","slug":"k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006","title":{"rendered":"K.P. Rathikumar vs N.K. Santhamma on 26 September, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.P. Rathikumar vs N.K. Santhamma on 26 September, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl Rev Pet No. 3296 of 2006()\n\n\n1. K.P. RATHIKUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. N.K. SANTHAMMA, KARUNAGIRI,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.VINOD\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :26\/09\/2006\n\n O R D E R\n                                  R. BASANT, J.\n                           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                         Crl.R.P.No. 3296  of   2006\n                          -  - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n               Dated this the  26th day of   September, 2006\n\n\n                                      O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
       Does  the admission that the cheque was issued as security for<\/p>\n
“………………………” repayment of the loan take the transaction out of<\/p>\n
the sweep of Section 138 of the N.I. Act?  Tis is the relevant question<\/p>\n
that falls for consideration in   this revision  petition  directed against<\/p>\n
a   concurrent   verdict   of     guilty,   conviction   and   sentence   in   a<\/p>\n
prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2.     The cheque is  for an amount of Rs. 20,000\/-.   It bears the<\/p>\n
date   1.1.2001.     The   petitioner   now   faces   a   sentence   of   S.I.   for   a<\/p>\n
period of two months.  There is also a direction    to pay  an   amount<\/p>\n
of Rs. 20,000\/- as compensation and in default  to undergo S.I. for a<\/p>\n
period of one month.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       3.     The   signature in the cheque is admitted.   The  notice of<\/p>\n
demand   was   duly     received   and   acknowledged.     But   no   reply   is<\/p>\n
produced   and   proved.     It   is   undisputed   that   a   reply   was   sent   and<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No. 3296  of   2006                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
received by the counsel for the complainant.    The complainant examined<\/p>\n
herself as PW1 and  proved  Exts.P1 to P7.    In the reply notice and in the<\/p>\n
course   of   the  trial,  the   accused     took  up     the  stand  that  the  cheque  was<\/p>\n
issued as a signed blank cheque as security not to the complainant, but to<\/p>\n
her deceased husband as security for the due discharge of the liability in a<\/p>\n
transaction for a much lesser amount of Rs.10,000\/-  The  said amount  had<\/p>\n
been paid and discharged also without voucher.  The complainant’s husband<\/p>\n
had   thereafter  committed   suicide.    The   complainant   was   misutilising  the<\/p>\n
said cheque to stake such a false claim.  The accused examined a witness as<\/p>\n
DW1.     The   purpose   of   examination   of   this   witness   is   to   show   that<\/p>\n
discharge without voucher of the liability to the deceased husband of the<\/p>\n
complainant was made.  .\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       4.    The courts below, in these circumstances,   concurrently came to<\/p>\n
the conclusion that   the  complainant   has   succeeded   in   establishing  all<\/p>\n
ingredients of   the  offence punishable   under Section 138 of the N.I.   Act.<\/p>\n
Accordingly they   proceeded to pass the  impugned  concurrent judgments.<\/p>\n
       5.       Called   upon   to   explain   the   nature   of   challenge   which   the<\/p>\n
petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No. 3296  of   2006                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the contentions that  have been<\/p>\n
raised before the courts below.   In addition he raises a further contention<\/p>\n
that even admittedly, going by the  notice  of demand, Ext.P3, the cheque<\/p>\n
was issued only as security and not for the discharge of a legally enforcible<\/p>\n
liability.  I have been taken through the relevant evidence in the case.<\/p>\n
       6.  The first  contention raised before this court that the cheque was<\/p>\n
issued    admittedly  only as security  cannot obviously  stand.   I have  been<\/p>\n
taken through the notice of demand, Ext.P3.  In that it is very clearly stated<\/p>\n
that the amount was borrowed and as security for repayment   the cheque<\/p>\n
was issued.  It is true that the word  security  ” ……………………” is repeated<\/p>\n
twice in Ext.P3 notice.    But according to me it would be myopic  to come<\/p>\n
to   the   conclusion   from   that   expression     employed   in   the   notice   that   the<\/p>\n
cheque   was   not     issued   for   the   discharge   of   any   legally   enforcible<\/p>\n
debt\/liability.  When repayment is assured by issue of a cheque, in common<\/p>\n
parlance     the   laity   may   refer   to   such     handing   over   of   the   cheque   for<\/p>\n
discharge  of the  liability  as a conduct to assure  and  secure  payment and<\/p>\n
discharge of the liability.  It would be  impermissible from that expression<\/p>\n
used, which, according to me, only conveys that the lending\/borrowal  was<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No. 3296  of   2006                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
on the strength of   the cheque  issued for the discharge of the liability, to<\/p>\n
conclude that the cheque was not issued for the discharge of any liability.<\/p>\n
The inexact expression used in the notice of demand even assuming that it<\/p>\n
does not mean “on the strength of” and means “on the security of” cannot in<\/p>\n
any way deliver any advantage to the petitioner.  The cheque will continue<\/p>\n
to be one issued for the discharge of liability as contemplated under Section<\/p>\n
138 of the N.I. Act.   The crucial question is only whether the cheque was<\/p>\n
drawn – written, signed and delivered,  to the complainant by the petitioner.<\/p>\n
       7.     The   contention   that   there   was   no   transaction   between   the<\/p>\n
petitioner  and   the complainant and that the real transaction was with the<\/p>\n
complainant’s     husband   and   the   petitioner   remains   in   the   realm   of   an<\/p>\n
unsubstantiated  contention.        That   contention   is  contra  indicated  by  the<\/p>\n
evidence   of   PW1   and   her   ability   to   produce   Ext.P1   cheque,   which   is<\/p>\n
admittedly issued to the petitioner by his bank to   operate his account and<\/p>\n
which admittedly bears the signature of the petitioner.  While  appreciating<\/p>\n
the evidence of PW1 about the handing over of the cheque, it is relevant to<\/p>\n
note the defence which is set up.   It is the case of the petitioner that the<\/p>\n
cheque was handed over to the husband of the complainant and that the said<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No. 3296  of   2006                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
transaction was completed and liability discharged by payment of money<\/p>\n
through DW1.   If that be so, it passes ones comprehension as to why the<\/p>\n
blank   signed   cheque   given  as  security   was  not  taken   back.     There  is  no<\/p>\n
explanation     as   to   why   DW1   did   not   take   any  acknowledgment\/voucher<\/p>\n
from   the   deceased   husband   of   the   complainant   when   the   liability   was<\/p>\n
discharged and the transaction closed.    The inherent improbability in the<\/p>\n
case  of discharge  pleaded  by  the  petitioner  is also one  circumstance  that<\/p>\n
must  go to assure the court about the acceptability of the oral evidence of<\/p>\n
PW1.   Once the oral evidence of PW1 is accepted, the presumption under<\/p>\n
Section  139  of  the  N.I. Act  comes into  play.    That  burden  has not  been<\/p>\n
discharged by the petitioner.  The plea of discharge through DW1 is also so<\/p>\n
fragile   and   brittle   that   it   must   fall   to   the   ground   as   improbable   and<\/p>\n
unacceptable.     No   other   contentions   on   merits   have   been   raised.   I   am<\/p>\n
satisfied that the challenge on merits must, in these circumstances, fail.<\/p>\n
         8.      The learned counsel  prays that leniency may be shown on the<\/p>\n
question   of   sentence.    I   find   merit   in   the  prayer   for   leniency.         I  have<\/p>\n
already   adverted   to   the  principles   governing   imposition   of   sentence   in   a<\/p>\n
prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in the decision in Anilkumar<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No. 3296  of   2006                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
v.   Shammy    (2002 (3) KLT 852).   In the facts and circumstances of the<\/p>\n
case, I  do  not find  any   compelling reasons which can persuade this court<\/p>\n
to     insist   on     imposition   of   any   deterrent   substantive   sentence   of<\/p>\n
imprisonment on the petitioner.  Leniency can be shown on the question of<\/p>\n
sentence,     but   subject  to  the  compulsion  of ensuring adequate and just<\/p>\n
compensation to the victim\/complainant,    who  has been compelled to wait<\/p>\n
from 2001 and to fight two rounds of legal battle  for the redressal of  his<\/p>\n
genuine grievances.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       9.     In   the   nature   of   the   relief   which   I  propose   to   grant,     it   is   not<\/p>\n
necessary to  wait for issue  and return of notice to the respondent.<\/p>\n
       10.  In the result:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       (a)  This revision petition is allowed in part.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       (b)   The impugned verdict of guilty and conviction of the petitioner<\/p>\n
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act  are upheld.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       )     But   the   sentence   imposed   is   modified   and   reduced.     In<\/p>\n
supersession of the  sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below,<\/p>\n
he is sentenced  to undergo imprisonment  till rising of court.   He is further<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No. 3296  of   2006             7<\/span><\/p>\n
directed   under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to pay an  amount   of Rs.27,000\/-<\/p>\n
(Rupees twenty seven thousand  only)  as compensation  and in default to<\/p>\n
undergo S.I. for a period of one month.   If realised  the entire amount shall<\/p>\n
be released to the complainant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      11.  The petitioner shall appear  before the learned Magistrate on or<\/p>\n
before 30.11.2006 to serve the modified sentence hereby imposed.       The<\/p>\n
sentence shall not be executed till that date.    If the petitioner does   not so<\/p>\n
appear, the learned Magistrate shall thereafter   proceed to take  necessary<\/p>\n
steps  to execute the modified sentence hereby imposed.<\/p>\n
                                                   (R. BASANT)
\n                                                        Judge<\/p>\n
tm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.P. Rathikumar vs N.K. Santhamma on 26 September, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl Rev Pet No. 3296 of 2006() 1. K.P. RATHIKUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. N.K. SANTHAMMA, KARUNAGIRI, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE For Petitioner :SRI.R.VINOD 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-191308","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.P. Rathikumar vs N.K. Santhamma on 26 September, 2006 - 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\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.P. Rathikumar vs N.K. Santhamma on 26 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-25T08:54:57+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\\\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.P. Rathikumar vs N.K. Santhamma on 26 September, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-25T08:54:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1343,\"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\\\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006\",\"name\":\"K.P. Rathikumar vs N.K. Santhamma on 26 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-25T08:54:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.P. Rathikumar vs N.K. Santhamma on 26 September, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"K.P. Rathikumar vs N.K. Santhamma on 26 September, 2006 - 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\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.P. Rathikumar vs N.K. Santhamma on 26 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-25T08:54:57+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\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.P. Rathikumar vs N.K. Santhamma on 26 September, 2006","datePublished":"2006-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-25T08:54:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006"},"wordCount":1343,"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\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006","name":"K.P. Rathikumar vs N.K. Santhamma on 26 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-25T08:54:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-rathikumar-vs-n-k-santhamma-on-26-september-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.P. Rathikumar vs N.K. Santhamma on 26 September, 2006"}]},{"@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\/191308","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=191308"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191308\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191308"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191308"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191308"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}