{"id":203600,"date":"2010-04-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010"},"modified":"2016-01-15T23:30:15","modified_gmt":"2016-01-15T18:00:15","slug":"kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Kalpeshbhai vs Vidhyaben on 16 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kalpeshbhai vs Vidhyaben on 16 April, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.MA\/19732010\/2010\t 1\/ 7\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nMISC.APPLICATION No. 1973 of 2010\n \n\n \n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nKALPESHBHAI\nGHANSHYAMBHAI DESAI - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nVIDHYABEN\nWD\/O SHANTILAL BAVABHAI PATEL &amp; 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nBC DAVE for Applicant(s) : 1, \nRULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n3. \nMR KT DAVE for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. \nMR AMIT K DAVE for\nRespondent(s) : 1 - 3. \nMR. K.L.PANDYA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC\nPROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :\n4, \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 RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 16\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpresent application has been filed by the Applicant   Complainant<br \/>\n\tfor cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the Respondents<br \/>\n\tOriginal Accused herein passed by the learned Additional Sessions<br \/>\n\tJudge, Fast Track Court No.6, Vadodara  in Criminal Misc.<br \/>\n\tApplication No. 268 of 2010 dated 25.02.2010, on the grounds<br \/>\n\tnarrated in the application.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\n\tcomplaint being I-CR No. 16 of 2010 has been registered with Varnama<br \/>\n\tPolice Station, Vadodara for the alleged offences under Sections<br \/>\n\t498A, 306 and 114 of IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\n\tAdvocate Mr. B.C.Dave for the Applicant   Complainant referred to<br \/>\n\tthe facts stating that the husband of the deceased has expired on<br \/>\n\t22.1.2008 after a span of marriage life of 15 years.  However, he<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that the entry was made for entering the name of the<br \/>\n\tchildren of the deceased regarding inheritance of the property which<br \/>\n\tlead to the harassment to the deceased by the Respondents, who are<br \/>\n\tmother-in-law and sister-in-law.  Learned Advocate Mr. Dave<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that the conduct of the Respondents is required to be<br \/>\n\tconsidered as they have not informed the police station which is<br \/>\n\thardly 200 kmts. Away from the place of incident nor they have<br \/>\n\tinformed anybody.  He emphasized and submitted that the statements<br \/>\n\tof neighbour and even the son of the deceased Dhruvil Kumar would<br \/>\n\treveal as to what has transpired.  He further submitted that the PM<br \/>\n\treport would reveal the manner in which she has burnt.  Therefore,<br \/>\n\the referred to page 42 and submitted that I.O. in his affidavit has<br \/>\n\talso clearly referred to the said facts which he pointedly referred<br \/>\n\tto emphasis about the role and the conduct of the accused.  Learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate Mr. Dave submitted that the police has not made further<br \/>\n\tinvestigation on the ground that there is a stay of investigation.<br \/>\n\tHowever, he submitted that there is no stay of the investigation and<br \/>\n\tthe application is filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail.  He<br \/>\n\treferred to the affidavit of the I.O. for that purpose.  Learned<br \/>\n\tAdvocate Mr. Dave has also referred to the judgment of the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\n\tApex Court in case of Samundar Singh v. State of Rajasthan,<br \/>\n\tAIR 1987 SC 737 and<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that in such a type of case of dowry death, the discretion<br \/>\n\tfor anticipatory bail ought not to have been exercised.  He<br \/>\n\temphasized that she was not taken to the hospital nor any shouts<br \/>\n\twere raised or efforts were made to save her, which is reflected<br \/>\n\tfrom the statements of neighbours and therefore, the order granting<br \/>\n\tanticipatory bail is erroneous.  He referred to the impugned order<br \/>\n\tpassed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track<br \/>\n\tCourt, Vadodara and submitted that the observations have been made<br \/>\n\tcontrary to the facts and the learned Judge has erroneously granted<br \/>\n\tanticipatory bail.  Learned Advocate Mr. B.C.Dave submitted that the<br \/>\n\tdiscretion under Section 438 is a extraordinary power which could<br \/>\n\tnot have been exercised in such a manner and therefore the present<br \/>\n\tapplication may be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\n\tAdvocate Mr. K.T.Dave for the Respondents submitted that it is not a<br \/>\n\tcase of dowry death as the charges for the offence under Sections<br \/>\n\t498A, 306 and 114 of IPC.  He submitted that the span of marriage<br \/>\n\tlife was 15 years.  He therefore submitted that the observations<br \/>\n\tmade by the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court in case of  Samundar Singh<br \/>\n\tv. State of Rajasthan (supra)<br \/>\n\twould not have any application.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\n\tAdvocate Mr. K.T.Dave for the Respondents submitted that<br \/>\n\tthe Respondent No.1 is the mother-in-law, aged about 87 years and<br \/>\n\tRespondent Nos. 2 and 3 are sister-in-law, who are married and<br \/>\n\tresiding separately.  Learned Advocate Mr. K.T.Dave submitted that<br \/>\n\tthe children were not present and therefore it could not have been<br \/>\n\tstated as to what has transpired.  He submitted that though the<br \/>\n\tchildren, particularly, the son is stated to be a witness, he has<br \/>\n\tobly stated about the minor quarrels.  He therefore submitted that<br \/>\n\tit is a matter of appreciation of evidence at the trial and the<br \/>\n\torder granting anticipatory bail may not be disturbed.  Learned<br \/>\n\tAdvocate Mr. Dave has also referred to and relied upon the judgment<br \/>\n\tof the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court in case of <a href=\"\/doc\/238832\/\">Savitri Agarwal and<br \/>\n\tOthers v. State of Maharashtra and Another,<\/a> (2009) 8 SCC 325<br \/>\n\tand strenuously submitted that the criteria \/ parameters for<br \/>\n\tcancellation of bail are different than grant of bail and submitted<br \/>\n\tthat the order granting anticipatory bail is just and proper and may<br \/>\n\tnot be disturbed.  Referring to the observations made in the<br \/>\n\taforesaid judgment he emphasized and submitted that the cogent and<br \/>\n\toral circumstances are necessary for directing the cancellation of<br \/>\n\tbail already granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\n\tAPP Mr. K.L.Pandya submitted that in view of the affidavit filed by<br \/>\n\tthe I.O. ad the statement of witnesses, including the statement of<br \/>\n\tneighbours of the child Dhruvil Kumar, the anticipatory bail<br \/>\n\tdeserves to be cancelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\n\tAdvocate Mr. B.C.Dave in Rejoinder submitted that the powers for<br \/>\n\trecording anticipatory bail are extraordinary in nature and<br \/>\n\ttherefore, in the facts of the case, it could not have been<br \/>\n\texercised.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn view of<br \/>\n\tthe rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the<br \/>\n\tpresent order granting anticipatory bail calls for any interference<br \/>\n\tor not.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\n\tis well settled that the discretion under Section 438 is<br \/>\n\textraordinary and is required to be exercised with care and<br \/>\n\tcircumspection.  It is also observed that such orders are not<br \/>\n\trequired to be passed to arm the accused to thwart the prompt<br \/>\n\tinvestigation.  This Court is not required to appreciate and<br \/>\n\tscrutinize the evidence in detail at this stage.  Further,<br \/>\n\tconsidering this facts and a bare minimum facts, which are required<br \/>\n\tto be appreciated are that the motive is attributed with regard to<br \/>\n\tthe entry of the name of the children of the deceased regarding<br \/>\n\tinheritance, which lead to the quarrel. This aspect is also required<br \/>\n\tto be considered in light of the statements of neighbours and also<br \/>\n\tof the son Dhruvil.  In the opinion of this Court, the learned Judge<br \/>\n\tmay not have, while recording the reasons properly appreciated and<br \/>\n\ttherefore, without any elaboration on this aspect, the order<br \/>\n\tgranting anticipatory bail to the Respondents, who are females, is<br \/>\n\trequired to be considered,<br \/>\n\twhether it calls for any interference and<br \/>\n\twhether such anticipatory bail is required to be cancelled or not.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\n\tstatement of witnesses and the son Dhruvil Kumar prima facie suggest<br \/>\n\tabout the constant quarrel and harassment in wake of the entry<br \/>\n\tregarding inheritance in the name of the children of the deceased.<br \/>\n\tFurther, the conduct of the accused persons which is highlighted,<br \/>\n\talso cannot be said to be satisfactory.  The submissions made by<br \/>\n\tlearned Advocate Mr. K.T.Dave for the Respondents referring to the<br \/>\n\tjudgment in case of  <a href=\"\/doc\/238832\/\">Savitri Agarwal and Others v. State<br \/>\n\tof Maharashtra and Another<\/a> (supra),<br \/>\n\twould stand on a different footing as it was given in the facts of<br \/>\n\tthe case when the deceased was removed to the hospital and her<br \/>\n\tstatement was recorded, where she has narrated as to what has<br \/>\n\ttranspired, whereas the facts of the present case are totally<br \/>\n\tdifferent and this also is required to be appreciated that the<br \/>\n\texercise of discretionary power under Section 438 has to be<br \/>\n\texercised with more care and circumspection keeping in mind nature<br \/>\n\tand character of evidence and whether the accused are likely to<br \/>\n\ttamper with or cause prejudice to the investigation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\n\tthe facts of the present case, though the cause is entry of the<br \/>\n\tchildren regarding inheritance, however, it is also required to be<br \/>\n\tconsidered that the children are taken care of by Respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.1   mother-in-law as stated at the bar on inquiry.  All the<br \/>\n\taccused are females and therefore considering the overall facts and<br \/>\n\tcircumstances and material on record<br \/>\n\tcoupled with the fact that the respondents are females, the present<br \/>\n\tapplication deserves to be rejected and accordingly stands rejected.<br \/>\n\t Rule is discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(Rajesh H.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tShukla, J.)<\/p>\n<p>\t FURTHER<br \/>\n\tORDER:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAfter the<br \/>\n\torder was pronounced, learned Advocate Mr. B.C.Dave for the<br \/>\n\tApplicant requested for stay of the order recording cancellation of<br \/>\n\tanticipatory bail on the ground that the previous Bench has passed<br \/>\n\tan order and therefore it may be continued.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tAdvocate Mr. K.T.Dave for the Respondents submitted that infact<br \/>\n\tafter the order was passed, the Applicant was not arrested, and<br \/>\n\ttherefore, the stay may not be granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>Normally,<br \/>\n\tthe time to approach the higher forum is granted, however, since it<br \/>\n\tis an order in an application regarding cancellation of anticipatory<br \/>\n\tbail, the order cannot be stayed, and therefore, the request made by<br \/>\n\tlearned Advocate Mr. B.C.Dave for the Applicant is rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Rajesh H.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shukla,J)<\/p>\n<p>Jayanti*<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Kalpeshbhai vs Vidhyaben on 16 April, 2010 Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/19732010\/2010 1\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 1973 of 2010 ========================================= KALPESHBHAI GHANSHYAMBHAI DESAI &#8211; Applicant(s) Versus VIDHYABEN WD\/O SHANTILAL BAVABHAI PATEL &amp; 3 &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================= [&hellip;]<\/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-203600","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kalpeshbhai vs Vidhyaben on 16 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kalpeshbhai vs Vidhyaben on 16 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-15T18:00:15+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kalpeshbhai vs Vidhyaben on 16 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-15T18:00:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1439,\"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\\\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Kalpeshbhai vs Vidhyaben on 16 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-15T18:00:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kalpeshbhai vs Vidhyaben on 16 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Kalpeshbhai vs Vidhyaben on 16 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kalpeshbhai vs Vidhyaben on 16 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-15T18:00:15+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kalpeshbhai vs Vidhyaben on 16 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-15T18:00:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010"},"wordCount":1439,"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\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010","name":"Kalpeshbhai vs Vidhyaben on 16 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-15T18:00:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalpeshbhai-vs-vidhyaben-on-16-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kalpeshbhai vs Vidhyaben on 16 April, 2010"}]},{"@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\/203600","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=203600"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203600\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203600"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203600"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203600"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}