{"id":20367,"date":"2010-01-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010"},"modified":"2017-03-17T10:09:35","modified_gmt":"2017-03-17T04:39:35","slug":"ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ram Bai vs Jagdish Prasad Yadav on 18 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ram Bai vs Jagdish Prasad Yadav on 18 January, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n             HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n               FIRST APPEAL M 50 of 2008\n\n                     Ram Bai\n                              ...Petitioners\n\n                                Versus\n\n                     Jagdish Prasad Yadav\n                               ...Respondents\n\n!                  Shri Sanjay K Agrawal, Sudeep Agrawal\n\n^                  Shri S K Tiwari\n\n CORAM : Honble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri AND  Honble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra JJ   \n\n Dated:  18\/01\/2010\n\n: JUDGEMENT    \n<\/pre>\n<p> FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984              <\/p>\n<p>  Per Satish K. Agnihotri, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>  1.   By  this  appeal, the appellant seeks to  challenge  the<\/p>\n<p>       legality and validity of the order dated 22.2.2008 (Annexure<\/p>\n<p>       P\/1) passed by the Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, in Civil Suit<\/p>\n<p>       No. 19-A\/2006 whereby the application filed by the respondent<\/p>\n<p>       under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short<\/p>\n<p>       `the Act, 1955&#8242;) for grant of a decree of divorce has been<\/p>\n<p>       allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   The case of the respondent\/plaintiff before the Trial<br \/>\nCourt was that the marriage between the parties was solemnized<br \/>\naccording to the Hindu rites on 6th May, 1992. After the<br \/>\nmarriage, the appellant\/defendant treated the<br \/>\nrespondent\/plaintiff and his family members with cruelty. The<br \/>\nwife-appellant even refused to have cohabitation with the<br \/>\nrespondent\/plaintiff. According to the respondent\/plaintiff,<br \/>\nthe appellant used to go to his paternal house without<br \/>\ninforming her in-laws. On 25.03.1993, the wife left her<br \/>\nmatrimonial home and went to her parental home and even after<br \/>\nrepeated efforts and request to her, she did not return to her<br \/>\nmatrimonial home. It was further the case of the<br \/>\nrespondent\/plaintiff before the Trial Court that the<br \/>\nappellant\/defendant on her own has deserted him and has given<br \/>\ndivorce in writing and thereafter, they had been living<br \/>\nseparately for the last 13 years. Thus, the<br \/>\nrespondent\/plaintiff filed a civil suit, being C.S. No. 19-<br \/>\nA\/2006, for a decree of divorce under provisions of section<br \/>\n13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1955.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   The case of the appellant\/defendant before the Trial Court<br \/>\nwas that she was subjected to harsh and cruel treatment by her<br \/>\nhusband and her in-laws. The respondent\/plaintiff himself had<br \/>\npressurized her to sign over the divorce document. She never<br \/>\nwanted to reside separately from the husband. Thus, she prayed<br \/>\nfor dismissal of the application for grant of a decree of<br \/>\ndivorce.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   The learned Trial Court, after hearing the parties and<br \/>\nconsidering the materials on record, came to the conclusion<br \/>\nthat the parties have been residing separately for the last 13<br \/>\nyears and no efforts have been made by the appellant\/defendant<br \/>\nfor restitution of their conjugal rights. On the contrary, the<br \/>\nappellant\/defendant has filed an application under section 125<br \/>\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short `the<br \/>\nCr.P.C.&#8217;) for grant of maintenance. The Court has also<br \/>\nendeavoured for compromise and settlement of their dispute<br \/>\nunder section 23(2) of the Act, 1955, section 9 of the Family<br \/>\nCourts Act,1984 and Order 32-A Rule 3 of the Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure, 1908, but no settlement could be arrived between the<br \/>\nparties. The appellant\/defendant has treated the<br \/>\nrespondent\/plaintiff with cruelty, and thus, he was held to be<br \/>\nentitled to a decree of divorce. Accordingly, the application<br \/>\nof the respondent\/plaintiff for grant of a decree of divorce<br \/>\nwas decreed.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   On perusal of the records, it appears that the marital<br \/>\nlife of the parties was not healthy and in turbulence. They<br \/>\nwere living separately since March\/April 1994. The<br \/>\nrespondent\/plaintiff is employed in the Railway Department and<br \/>\nthe appellant\/defendant is also an Angan Badi worker earning a<br \/>\nsum of Rs. 939\/- p.m. Under the provisions of section 125 of<br \/>\nthe Cr.P.C. the appellant\/defendant is getting a sum of Rs.<br \/>\n600\/- p.m. The said amount was later on enhanced to Rs. 1000\/-.<br \/>\nThe allegation of both the parties are that they were subjected<br \/>\nto cruel treatment.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   Jagdish Prasad Yadav, (PW\/1), the respondent\/plaintiff, in<br \/>\nhis deposition stated that since the marriage dated 6th May,<br \/>\n1992, the appellant\/defendant lived with her only for six<br \/>\nmonths. She was having a continuous fight with brothers,<br \/>\nsisters and parents of the respondent\/plaintiff. Thereafter,<br \/>\nthe appellant\/defendant left him for her parental home. Despite<br \/>\ntheir efforts and the members of the society, she did not come<br \/>\nback to her matrimonial home. In cross examination, it was<br \/>\nstated that she further threatened him with dire consequences.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   Shri Dubraj Rathia, (PW\/2), in his deposition stated that<br \/>\nthe parents of the appellant\/defendant took the appellant-wife<br \/>\nto their parental home. The members of the society tried for<br \/>\ntheir settlement, but nothing could be done and she remained<br \/>\naway from her matrimonial home for about 13 years.  Her parents<br \/>\nwere paid Rs. 5000\/- as compensation also.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   The appellant\/defendant (DW\/1) in her deposition stated<br \/>\nthat she was deprived food and the members of the society were<br \/>\nprejudicial to her. She wanted to live with her husband but no<br \/>\namicable situation was created wherein she could live<br \/>\ncomfortably with her husband. Accordingly, she left her<br \/>\nmatrimonial home and started living in her parental home.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   Smt. Ahilya Yadav (DW\/2) in her deposition stated that she<br \/>\nwas informed by the appellant that she wanted to go to her<br \/>\nmatrimonial home but her husband i.e. the respondent\/plaintiff<br \/>\nwas not agreeable.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.  One more witness namely Sukhmet Bai Sidar (DW\/3) deposed<br \/>\nthat she was informed by the appellant wife that the<br \/>\nrespondent\/plaintiff was harassing  the appellant\/defendant for<br \/>\nfood and clothings that&#8217;s why she decided not to live with the<br \/>\nrespondent\/plaintiff for the last 13 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.  On perusal of the judgment and decree, we have found that<br \/>\nthe Court below has appreciated the evidence properly and have<br \/>\ncome to the right conclusion. Accordingly, a decree of divorce<br \/>\nwas granted on 22nd February, 2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.  It is informed at the bar that the respondent\/plaintiff<br \/>\nhas solemnized second marriage. The respondent-husband is at<br \/>\npresent earning Rs. 6000\/- per month and the appellant-wife is<br \/>\nearning Rs. 2000\/- per month. The appellant-wife is getting a<br \/>\nsum of Rs. 1000\/- under the provisions of section 125 Cr.P.C.<br \/>\nHowever, no amount was granted as permanent alimony under<br \/>\nsection 25 of the Act, 1955.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.  <a href=\"\/doc\/1804316\/\">In Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit1,<\/a> wherein the Court<br \/>\nbelow declined to grant a decree of divorce which was confirmed<br \/>\nby the High Court, the Supreme Court, while considering the<br \/>\ndead relationship between the parties for over 13 years,<br \/>\nobserved as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                    &#8220;52.  In our view, the orders of  the<br \/>\n                  courts  below  have resulted  in  grave<br \/>\n                  miscarriage   of   justice    to    the<br \/>\n                  appellant   who  has  been  constrained<br \/>\n                  into  living  with a dead  relationship<br \/>\n                  for  over 13 years. The resultant agony<br \/>\n                  and  injustice that has been caused  to<br \/>\n                  the  appellant, it is a  fit  case  for<br \/>\n                  interference under Article 136  of  the<br \/>\n                  Constitution and reversal  of  findings<br \/>\n                  of   the   courts  below   which   have<br \/>\n                  resulted   in   grave  miscarriage   of<br \/>\n                  justice.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>  14.  The Supreme Court, in <a href=\"\/doc\/1643829\/\">Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli2,<\/a> while<\/p>\n<p>       dealing with the identical issue involved in this  case,<\/p>\n<p>       observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                  &#8220;91.A  marriage between the parties  is<br \/>\n                  only  in  name. The marriage  has  been<br \/>\n                  wrecked  beyond  the hope  of  salvage,<br \/>\n                  public  interest  and interest  of  all<br \/>\n                  concerned  lies  in the recognition  of<br \/>\n                  the  fact  and  to declare  defunct  de<br \/>\n                  jure  what is already defunct de facto.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                  To   keep   the   sham   is   obviously<br \/>\n                  conducive     to     immorality     and<br \/>\n                  potentially  more  prejudicial  to  the<br \/>\n                  public  interest than a dissolution  of<br \/>\n                  the marriage bond.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>  15.  In  Gananath  Pattnaik v. State of Orissa3, the  Supreme<\/p>\n<p>       Court observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                  &#8220;7.  The  concept  of cruelty  and  its<br \/>\n                  effect   varies   from  individual   to<br \/>\n                  individual,  also  depending  upon  the<br \/>\n                  social  and  economic status  to  which<br \/>\n                  such person belongs. &#8220;Cruelty&#8221; for  the<br \/>\n                  purposes  of  constituting the  offence<br \/>\n                  under  the aforesaid section  need  not<br \/>\n                  be  physical.  Even mental  torture  or<br \/>\n                  abnormal   behaviour  may   amount   to<br \/>\n                  cruelty  and  harassment  in  a   given<br \/>\n                  case.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>  16.  Further, in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1353460\/\">Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta4, the Supreme<\/p>\n<p>  Court<\/a> observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                  &#8220;21.   Cruelty  for  the   purpose   of<br \/>\n                  Section 13(1)(i-a) is to be taken as  a<br \/>\n                  behaviour  by  one spouse  towards  the<br \/>\n                  other,    which    causes    reasonable<br \/>\n                  apprehension in the mind of the  latter<br \/>\n                  that  it is not safe for him or her  to<br \/>\n                  continue  the  matrimonial relationship<br \/>\n                  with  the  other. Mental cruelty  is  a<br \/>\n                  state  of mind and feeling with one  of<br \/>\n                  the  spouses  due to the  behaviour  or<br \/>\n                  behavioural  pattern  by   the   other.<br \/>\n                  Unlike  the  case of physical  cruelty,<br \/>\n                  mental   cruelty   is   difficult    to<br \/>\n                  establish  by  direct evidence.  It  is<br \/>\n                  necessarily  a matter of  inference  to<br \/>\n                  be    drawn   from   the   facts    and<br \/>\n                  circumstances  of the case.  A  feeling<br \/>\n                  of    anguish,    disappointment    and<br \/>\n                  frustration  in  one spouse  caused  by<br \/>\n                  the  conduct of the other can  only  be<br \/>\n                  appreciated on assessing the  attending<br \/>\n                  facts  and  circumstances in which  the<br \/>\n                  two  partners of matrimonial life  have<br \/>\n                  been  living. The inference has  to  be<br \/>\n                  drawn  from  the  attending  facts  and<br \/>\n                  circumstances  taken  cumulatively.  In<br \/>\n                  case  of mental cruelty it will not  be<br \/>\n                  a  correct approach to take an instance<br \/>\n                  of  misbehaviour in isolation and  then<br \/>\n                  pose    the   question   whether   such<br \/>\n                  behaviour  is sufficient by  itself  to<br \/>\n                  cause   mental  cruelty.  The  approach<br \/>\n                  should   be   to  take  the  cumulative<br \/>\n                  effect  of  the facts and circumstances<br \/>\n                  emerging  from the evidence  on  record<br \/>\n                  and  then draw a fair inference whether<br \/>\n                  the  petitioner in the divorce petition<br \/>\n                  has  been  subjected to mental  cruelty<br \/>\n                  due to conduct of the other.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>  17.  <a href=\"\/doc\/268928\/\">In Suman Kapur v. Sudhir Kapur5,<\/a> after grant of divorce,<\/p>\n<p>       the husband entered into a second matrimonial alliance during<\/p>\n<p>       the limitation period for filing the appeal, the Supreme Court<\/p>\n<p>       observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                  26.   Regarding   remarriage   by   the<br \/>\n                  husband,  it was stated that after  the<br \/>\n                  decree  of divorce passed by the  trial<br \/>\n                  court,  the  husband did  not  remarry.<br \/>\n                  But   the   decree   of   divorce   was<br \/>\n                  confirmed   by  the  High  Court.   The<br \/>\n                  husband   thereafter  had   taken   the<br \/>\n                  action  which  cannot  be  said  to  be<br \/>\n                  illegal  or  otherwise  unlawful.   The<br \/>\n                  wife,   therefore,   cannot   take    a<br \/>\n                  technical  contention that the  husband<br \/>\n                  should  have waited till the period  of<br \/>\n                  filing special leave to appeal to  this<br \/>\n                  Court  would expire. It was, therefore,<br \/>\n                  submitted  that the appeal deserves  to<br \/>\n                  be dismissed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>  18.  Having regard to the facts situation of the case, a decree<\/p>\n<p>       of divorce cannot be reversed on account of the fact that the<\/p>\n<p>       respondent\/plaintiff has entered in  second  matrimonial<\/p>\n<p>       alliance, it would be proper to grant a sum of Rs. 1000\/- p.m.<\/p>\n<p>       as permanent alimony in addition to the amount already paid<\/p>\n<p>       under the provisions of section 125 Cr.P.C, payable to the<\/p>\n<p>       appellant-wife.\n<\/p>\n<p>19.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the above stated<br \/>\norder. There shall be no order asto costs\n<\/p>\n<p>  20.  A decree may be prepared accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                        J U D G E<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Ram Bai vs Jagdish Prasad Yadav on 18 January, 2010 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FIRST APPEAL M 50 of 2008 Ram Bai &#8230;Petitioners Versus Jagdish Prasad Yadav &#8230;Respondents ! Shri Sanjay K Agrawal, Sudeep Agrawal ^ Shri S K Tiwari CORAM : Honble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri AND Honble Shri [&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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20367","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ram Bai vs Jagdish Prasad Yadav on 18 January, 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\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Bai vs Jagdish Prasad Yadav on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-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=\"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-17T04:39:35+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Bai vs Jagdish Prasad Yadav on 18 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-17T04:39:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1697,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Ram Bai vs Jagdish Prasad Yadav on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-17T04:39:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Bai vs Jagdish Prasad Yadav on 18 January, 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":"Ram Bai vs Jagdish Prasad Yadav on 18 January, 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\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Bai vs Jagdish Prasad Yadav on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-17T04:39:35+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Bai vs Jagdish Prasad Yadav on 18 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-17T04:39:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010"},"wordCount":1697,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010","name":"Ram Bai vs Jagdish Prasad Yadav on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-17T04:39:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-bai-vs-jagdish-prasad-yadav-on-18-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Bai vs Jagdish Prasad Yadav on 18 January, 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\/20367","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=20367"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20367\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20367"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20367"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20367"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}