{"id":198690,"date":"2009-06-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009"},"modified":"2018-12-18T18:34:28","modified_gmt":"2018-12-18T13:04:28","slug":"munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Munnabhai vs Minor on 22 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Munnabhai vs Minor on 22 June, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Md Shah,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.RA\/9720\/2007\t 11\/ 11\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nREVISION APPLICATION No. 97 of 2007\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \n\n\n \n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE MD SHAH\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ? \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ? \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ? \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nMUNNABHAI\nRAJAKBHAI VAGDANI - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMINOR\nAMAN MUNNABHAI VAGDANI THROUGH HIS MATERNAL GRAND FAT & 1 -\nRespondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMS\nPREETI S PARMAR for\nApplicant(s) : 1,                             MR SV PARMAR for\nApplicant(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR HR\nPRAJAPATI for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR KP RAVAL, APP for\nRespondent(s) :\n2, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE MD SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 22\/06\/2009 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
This
\n\t revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has
\n\tbeen filed by the petitioner challenging the legality and validity
\n\tof order dated 5-12-2006 passed in Cri.Misc.Appln. No.79 of 2003 by
\n\tthe learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Mangrol, Junagadh
\n\tDistrict,  whereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to
\n\this minor son @ Rs.750\/- per month from the date of application.\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tlearned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.S.V.Parmar, learned advocate
\n\tfor the respondent No.1, Mr.H.R.Prajapati and learned Addl. Public
\n\tProsecutor for the respondent No.2-State, Mr.K.P.Raval.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis submitted by Mr.Parmar that nowhere it has come on record that
\n\tthe petitioner at any point of time had neglected and refused to
\n\tmaintain the minor child Aman Munnabhai  Vagdani. It is also
\n\tsubmitted that for getting custody of the child, the petitioner has
\n\tfiled Civil Misc. Appln.No.130 of 2004 under the Guardian and Wards
\n\tAct before the Addl. District Judge and Fast Track Court Court at
\n\tJunagadh. However, said application was rejected vide order dated
\n\t12-10-2007. Said order was challenged by him before the High Court
\n\twherein this Court was of the view that as the matter was conducted
\n\tbefore the trial court under the Guardian and Wards Act and not
\n\tunder the Mohammedan Law,  he was directed to approach the court
\n\tbelow under the Mohammedan Law. Hence, said application was
\n\tpermitted to be withdrawn.  Thereafter, Cri.Misc.Appln.No.14 of 2009
\n\twas filed by the present petitioner under the Mohammedan Law before
\n\tthe court below which is pending at present. Hence, according to
\n\thim, a jurisdictional error has been committed by the trial court in
\n\tgranting maintenance to the minor  especially when the petitioner is
\n\tthe natural guardian as the mother is no more alive. Further, a
\n\tgross illegality has been committed by the trial court in ordering
\n\tto pay maintenance to minor without considering that the petitioner
\n\tis  always ready and willing to keep minor with him as his natural
\n\tguardian and he is ready and willing to maintain him as his son. He
\n\thas also taken me through the deposition of the grandfather of the
\n\tchild-Bahudurbhai Mamadbhai Vadsaria. He has placed reliance upon
\n\tthe following judgments:\n<\/p>\n
AIR
\n\t1986 Supreme Court page 1186 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh
\n\tand others Vs. I.Sardar D.K.Jadav, head note (B) of which
\n\treads as under:\n<\/p>\n
 (B)
\n\tConstitution of India, Art.226 – WRITS – Scope of – Jurisdiction of
\n\tadministrative authority depending on preliminary finding of fact –
\n\tCorrectness of, can be determined by High Court under Article 226.\n<\/p>\n
(1979)2
\n\tSupreme Court Cases 316 in the case of Bai Tahira Vs. Ali Hussain
\n\tFidaalli Chothia and another; and<\/p>\n
(1992)1
\n\tSupreme Court Cases 534 in the case of Shrisht Dhawan (Smt.) Vs. M\/s
\n\tShaw Brothers. Mr.Parmar relied on paragraph No.19 of the said
\n\tjudgment which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
 The
\n\tinvalidity which could vitiate sanction was error in jurisdictional
\n\tfact at the time of grant of permission, as valid sanction was sine
\n\tqua non for Controller’s jurisdiction. A jurisdictional fact is one
\n\ton existence or non-existence of which depends assumption or refusal
\n\tto assume jurisdiction by a Court, Tribunal or an authority which is
\n\t a fact which must exist before a Court can properly assume
\n\tjurisdiction of a particular case. Mistake of fact in relation to
\n\tjurisdiction is an error of jurisdictional fact. No statutory
\n\tauthority or tribunal can assume jurisdiction in respect of
\n\tsubject-matter which the statute does not confer on it and if by
\n\tdeciding erroneously the fact on which jurisdiction depends the
\n\tCourt or tribunal exercises the jurisdiction then the order is
\n\tvitiated. Error of jurisdictional fact renders the order ultra vires
\n\tand bad [para 19] <\/p>\n
Relying
\n\t\ton the above referred reported judgments, it is submitted by
\n\t\tlearned advocate, Mr.Parmar that in this case also, the petitioner
\n\t\tis the natural guardian of Aman being father and the mother is no
\n\t\tmore in the world and hence, the petitioner is the only person as
\n\t\tthe father to get custody of minor Aman and so, question does not
\n\t\tarise to grant maintenance to minor son as he is natural guardian
\n\t\t(father of minor Aman). It is also submitted that nothing has come
\n\t\ton  record to show that the petitioner has refused or neglected to
\n\t\tmaintain Amin and this fact  is not considered by the trial court
\n\t\tand this is the error of jurisdictional fact and so, the order
\n\t\tpassed by the trial court is required to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Prajapati,
\n\tlearned advocate for the respondent No.1, however submitted that
\n\tunnatural death of the mother of the minor child had taken place at
\n\tthe matrimonial home and for which, the present petitioner along
\n\twith other accused were charge sheeted for the offences punishable
\n\tunder Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of IP Code and were sent to jail
\n\tfor a considerable time. On conclusion of trial, he was acquitted by
\n\tthe trial court vide judgement and order dated 17-2-2003r passed in
\n\tSessions Case No.45 of 2002. Said order of acquittal has been
\n\tchallenged by grandfather of the minor child by filing Cri. Revision
\n\tApplication No.76 of 2003 which is admitted by this Court and is
\n\tpending for final disposal. It is thus clear that from the date of
\n\tarrest of the accused i.e 10-4-2002, minor Aman, who was aged two
\n\tyears then and presently aged 9 years, was in the custody of the
\n\tgrandfather and is still in his custody and which has been held by
\n\tthe Court to be legal. When custody of the minor child with the
\n\tgrandfather is held to be legal, it is the bounden duty of the
\n\tpetitioner as a father to maintain his minor child. He has relied on
\n\ta decision of the Apex Court in the case of Koli Odha Samat Vs.
\n\tBai Balu Jeram, reported in 1973 Cri.Law Journal page 1103. It
\n\thas been held by the Apex Court in paragraph No.3 of the above
\n\treported case as under:\n<\/p>\n
 It
\n\tis undoubtedly true that sub-section (1) of Section 488 of the
\n\tCriminal Procedure Code contemplates neglect or refusal to maintain
\n\tone’s own wife or legitimate or illegitimate children, who are
\n\tunable to maintain themselves. But so far as the minor children, who
\n\tare not able to maintain themselves are concerned, the law is that
\n\twherever they are found, their father is bound to maintain them
\n\tunder the provisions contemplated by Section 488 of the Criminal
\n\tProcedure Code. One reason, which has guided the courts to come to
\n\tthis conclusion is that minor children are never capable of taking a
\n\tdecision and therefore, they are not capable of deciding whether the
\n\toffer of their father to maintain them provided they stayed with him
\n\tshould be accepted or refused. They are also incapable of deciding
\n\twho shall have their actual custody. Under these circumstances, if
\n\tthese children are found to be in possession of their mother and if
\n\tmother unreasonably refuses to reside with her husband, minors
\n\tcannot be considered liable for the same and their father, who is
\n\tlegally obliged to maintain them, cannot escape from his liability
\n\tunder Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that
\n\the would maintain them provided they are put in his custody. The
\n\tquestion as to who is better entitled to the custody of minors, is
\n\tnot relevant for the purposes of deciding the rights of the minors
\n\tto get maintenance under Section 488 of the Code. Therefore, even if
\n\tthe minors are found in the actual custody of the wife, who refuses
\n\tto stay with her husband, the husband is, nonetheless, obliged to
\n\tprovide them maintenance contemplated by Section 488 of the Code.
\n\tThis view is fortified even by the scheme of the section, because,
\n\treference to the first proviso which is attached to sub-section (3)
\n\tof Section 488 of the Code, shows that the Legislature has
\n\tcontemplated only the offer made by the husband to maintain his
\n\twife,  and the ground of the wife for her refusal to stay with her
\n\thusband. This proviso significantly omits the consideration of the
\n\toffer made by the father to the minor children to reside with him.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\t\tview of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court in the
\n\t\treported judgment, it is submitted by Mr.Prajapati that the
\n\t\tquestion of custody of the minor is not material for deciding the
\n\t\tright enforceable under Sec.488 of Cr.P.C and hence, the petitioner
\n\t\tis obliged to pay maintenance to his minor child wherever he is
\n\t\tresiding.\n<\/p>\n
This
\n\tCourt has gone through the impugned order passed by the trial Court
\n\tas well as the judgments relied on by the learned advocates
\n\tappearing for the respective parties.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis an admitted position that Cri.Misc.Appln. No.134 of 2001 was
\n\tfiled by the deceased Noorjahan (mother of the minor) under Sec.125
\n\tof Code of Criminal Procedure. No doubt, the matter was settled
\n\tbetween the parties and thereafter, she went to her matrimonial
\n\thome. However, within short span of time, she committed suicide by
\n\ttaking poison on 10-4-2002. Hence, complaint for the offence
\n\tpunishable under Secs. 498-A, 306 and 114 of IP Code was filed
\n\tagainst the present petitioner and other accused and the petitioner
\n\twas sent to judicial custody. At the end of trial, he was acquitted
\n\tby the trial Court. Same has also been challenged in the High Court
\n\twhich is also pending.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis clear from the  above that before the death of Noorjahan, she was
\n\tcompelled to leave the matrimonial home because of the alleged
\n\ttorture committed by the accused and other family members. She then
\n\tfiled application under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. for her maintenance
\n\tand also for the maintenance of her minor son.\n<\/p>\n
Merely
\n\tbecause settlement had taken place between the parties and she went
\n\twith minor, it could not be said that petitioner was ready and
\n\twilling to keep Noorjahan and minor son voluntarily. As mentioned
\n\tabove, within no time, she committed suicide which speaks volume
\n\tabout the conduct of the present petitioner.  Merely because he has
\n\tbeen acquitted by the court, it cannot be said that he has a
\n\twillingness to maintain minor son. It is an undoubted fact that
\n\tminor was born and brought up by his grandfather when he was two
\n\tyears old and now he is aged about 9 years.  In such circumstances,
\n\tit can be easily said that the petitioner had neglected and refused
\n\tto maintain minor son as it is admitted by the  grandfather in his
\n\tdeposition that it was conveyed by him to take the custody of the
\n\tminor.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tappears from the record that Cri.Misc.Appln.No.130 of 2004 was also
\n\tfiled by the petitioner under the Guardian and Wards Act against his
\n\tfather-in-law for getting custody of the minor child Aman. However,
\n\tsaid application was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge
\n\tand 2nd Fast Track Court, Junagadh vide order dated
\n\t12-10-2007. When said order was challenged by him before the High
\n\tCourt, this Court was of the view that since the matter was
\n\tconducted before the trial court under the Guardian and Wards Act
\n\tand not under the Mohammedan Law,  he was directed to approach the
\n\tcourt below under the Mohammedan Law. Said application was then
\n\tpermitted to be withdrawn.  The petitioner then preferred
\n\tCri.Misc.Appln.No.14 of 2009 under the Mohammedan Law before the
\n\tcourt below which is pending adjudication. It is thus clear that
\n\tminor son Aman is with grandfather and is maintained by him. Hence,
\n\tit is the bounden duty of the petitioner being the father to pay
\n\tmaintenance as ordered by the court below.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\thas been held by the Apex Court in  Koli Odha Samat (supra)
\n\tthat the question as to who is better entitled to the custody of
\n\tminors is not relevant for the purposes of deciding the rights of
\n\tthe minors to get maintenance under Section 488 of the Code.
\n\tTherefore, even if the minors are found to be in the actual custody
\n\tof the wife, who refuses to stay with her husband, the husband is
\n\tobliged to provide them maintenance contemplated by Section 488 of
\n\tthe Code wherever the minors are staying.  In the present case,
\n\tcustody of the minor has not been given by the court below to the
\n\tpetitioner. The minor is presently residing with the grandfather
\n\twhich is held by the court to be legal. In such circumstances also,
\n\tthe petitioner is obliged to pay maintenance to his minor son even
\n\tthough he is not staying with him. It is to be noted that  till the
\n\tdate of filing of this revision application and orders passed
\n\ttherein, the petitioner did not even take care to provide any fund
\n\tfor the maintenance of his son nor has he shown any bona fide
\n\tintention indicating that he is ready and willing to deposit any
\n\tamount towards his maintenance. Merely by filing application under
\n\tthe Guardian and Wards Act or under the Mohammedan Law stating few
\n\twords that he is inclined to get custody of the minor is not
\n\tsufficient to show that he is ready to discharge his duty as father
\n\tin maintaining his child. This also clearly and distinctly shows
\n\tthat he has neglected and refused to maintain the child.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the above, there is no substance in the submission made by
\n\tlearned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Parmar that the trial court
\n\thas committed a jurisdictional error in view of the fact that the
\n\tpetitioner as a father has never refused and neglected to maintain
\n\tthe minor Aman or to keep his custody. As this Court does not see
\n\tany substance in this revision application, the same deserves to be
\n\tdismissed.\n<\/p>\n
This
\n\trevision application is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
\n\tInterim relief granted earlier stands vacated.\n<\/p>\n
Office
\n\tis directed to send back the record and proceedings forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
   \t\t\t\t\t\t\t  (M.D.SHAH,J.)<\/p>\n
radhan\/<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Munnabhai vs Minor on 22 June, 2009 Author: Md Shah,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.RA\/9720\/2007 11\/ 11 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 97 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-198690","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMunnabhai vs Minor on 22 June, 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\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Munnabhai vs Minor on 22 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-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=\"2009-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-18T13:04:28+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Munnabhai vs Minor on 22 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-18T13:04:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2324,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Munnabhai vs Minor on 22 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-18T13:04:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Munnabhai vs Minor on 22 June, 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":"Munnabhai vs Minor on 22 June, 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\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Munnabhai vs Minor on 22 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-18T13:04:28+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Munnabhai vs Minor on 22 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-18T13:04:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009"},"wordCount":2324,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009","name":"Munnabhai vs Minor on 22 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-18T13:04:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnabhai-vs-minor-on-22-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Munnabhai vs Minor on 22 June, 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\/198690","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=198690"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198690\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198690"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198690"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198690"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}