{"id":205520,"date":"2009-09-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-06-27T03:54:47","modified_gmt":"2017-06-26T22:24:47","slug":"ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ashok vs Sou. Rajni Ashok Ramatkar on 25 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Ashok vs Sou. Rajni Ashok Ramatkar on 25 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: R.Y. Ganoo<\/div>\n
      crra63.08.odt                                                      \n                                                                                                                       \n                                                                                                                        1  \/  5 \n\n\n\n                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                             NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                      \n                   CRIMINAL  REVISION APPLICATION NO. 63 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                     \n                Ashok s\/o Mahadeorao Ramatkar\n                aged 41 yrs., Occ. Service,\n                r\/o Methe Colony, Post Chandur Railway,\n                Tah. Chandur Railway,\n                Distt. Amravati.            ::        APPLICANT\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n                         -: Versus :-\n\n                Sou. Rajni Ashok Ramatkar,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n                aged about 37 yrs., Occ. Nil, \n                r\/o Chandra Nagar,\n                Nagpur.               ig      ::                                      RESPONDENT\n\n     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                   Shri N. D. Khamborkar, Advocate for the applicant.\n                                    \n                    Mr. Manish Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.\n     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                                                                  CORAM:   R. Y. GANOO, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                                  DATED :    25TH SEPT., 2009\n      \n\n\n     Oral Judgment \n   \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     1.                  Rule.  Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the <\/p>\n
     parties taken up for hearing immediately.\n<\/p>\n
     2.                  The   respondent-wife   along   with   her   children   had   filed <\/p>\n
     application   for   maintenance   in   the   Family   Court   at   Nagpur   being <\/p>\n
     petition   No.   E-2643   of   1996.     That   application   was   decided   on <\/p>\n
     20\/4\/2000 and the request for maintenance by the respondent under <\/p>\n
     Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     3.                  It is admitted by and between the parties that compromise <\/p>\n
     materialised   between   the   applicant   and   the   respondent   and   they <\/p>\n
                                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:07:34 :::<\/span>
\n       crra63.08.odt                                                      <\/p>\n
                                                                                                                        2  \/  5 <\/p>\n
     started staying together w.e.f. 12\/9\/2003.   They stayed for about six <\/p>\n
     months and thereafter the respondent left the house of the applicant <\/p>\n
     on the ground that applicant had treated the respondent with cruelty.\n<\/p>\n
     The applicant had filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights in the <\/p>\n
     Court   of   Civil   Judge,   Senior   Division,   Pusad.   In   the   said   petition <\/p>\n
     maintenance   was   awarded   in   favour   of   the   respondent.     The   said <\/p>\n
     petition came to be dismissed on 10\/7\/2006.   It is noticed that the <\/p>\n
     respondent, in the year 2006 had filed an application for maintenance <\/p>\n
     under Section 125 Cri. P.C. in the Family Court being petition No. E-80 <\/p>\n
     of 2006. This application was filed because the respondent was treated <\/p>\n
     with   cruelty   after   she   has   joined   the   applicant   pursuant   to   the <\/p>\n
     compromise which had materialised on 12\/9\/2003.   The parties led <\/p>\n
     evidence before the Court and the learned Judge of the Family Court <\/p>\n
     came to the conclusion that the applicant had treated the applicant <\/p>\n
     with   cruelty,   and   therefore,   the   respondent   was   entitled   to <\/p>\n
     maintenance. The learned Judge of the Family Court considered the <\/p>\n
     income   of   the   applicant   and   decided   the   application   and   by   order <\/p>\n
     dated 09\/01\/2008 granted maintenance in favour of the respondent to <\/p>\n
     the   tune   of  Rs.   1,000\/-  per  month   w.e.f.   March,   2006.    This   order <\/p>\n
     dated 09\/01\/2008 is challenged in this revision application.\n<\/p>\n
     4.                  I   have   heard   learned   Advocates   on   both   sides.     The <\/p>\n
     evidence on record clearly indicates that the applicant had treated the <\/p>\n
     respondent   with   cruelty   after   she   had   joined   the   company   of   the <\/p>\n
                                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:07:34 :::<\/span>
\n       crra63.08.odt                                                      <\/p>\n
                                                                                                                        3  \/  5 <\/p>\n
     applicant.  Even, conduct on the part of the applicant clearly indicates <\/p>\n
     that   he   wanted   to   maintain   his   wife   and   as   such   proceedings   for <\/p>\n
     restitution of conjugal rights were filed by the applicant which came to <\/p>\n
     be dismissed for default wherein order of maintenance was granted in <\/p>\n
     favour of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     5.                  On consideration of the entire record, the learned Judge of <\/p>\n
     the Family Court granted maintenance to the respondent in the sum of <\/p>\n
     Rs. 1,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
     6.                  I   have   heard   learned   Advocate   Mr.   Khamborkar   for   the <\/p>\n
     applicant.   He   tried   to   point   out   on   the   basis   of   evidence   that   the <\/p>\n
     applicant   had   not   treated   with   cruelty.     So   far   as   this   aspect   is <\/p>\n
     concerned,   I   am   not   inclined   to   accept   this   argument.     There   is   a <\/p>\n
     positive finding given by the learned Judge of the Family Court that <\/p>\n
     cross   examination   of   the   respondent   is   not   shattered   so   far   as   the <\/p>\n
     allegation of cruelty is concerned.   If this is so, it is not open for the <\/p>\n
     applicant to say that the learned Judge of the Family Court committed <\/p>\n
     wrong while recording affirmative finding on the point of cruelty.\n<\/p>\n
     7.                  Insofar   as   the   question   of   maintenance   is   concerned, <\/p>\n
     according to the learned Advocate for the applicant, at the time when <\/p>\n
     the   evidence   was   being   recorded,   the   applicant   was   not   getting <\/p>\n
     sufficient money in his hand and the figure quoted in the judgment <\/p>\n
     appears to be not proper.   According to him, if his income itself was <\/p>\n
     insufficient to  pay maintenance to the respondent as well  as to the <\/p>\n
                                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:07:34 :::<\/span>
\n       crra63.08.odt                                                      <\/p>\n
                                                                                                                        4  \/  5 <\/p>\n
     children, the order of maintenance @ Rs. 1,000\/- was on a higher side.\n<\/p>\n
     This, of course, was stated without prejudice to his argument that no <\/p>\n
     order of maintenance could have been granted.\n<\/p>\n
     8.                  I have considered the rival contentions.   In my view, the <\/p>\n
     stand taken by the learned Judge of the Family Court so as to fix the <\/p>\n
     maintenance @ Rs. 1,000\/- is reasonable.  The applicant is working as <\/p>\n
     Tracer in Public Works department of Government of Maharashtra.  It <\/p>\n
     appears   that   the   applicant   is   contributing   to   the   Provident   Fund   in <\/p>\n
     excess of his responsibility.  This conduct on the part of the petitioner <\/p>\n
     cannot be accepted.  In my view, a person who earns by way of salary <\/p>\n
     has to adjust his savings keeping in view the minimum requirements of <\/p>\n
     his wife and children.  It is not open for a husband to keep investing <\/p>\n
     money in various schemes and then claim to have no sufficient money <\/p>\n
     to look after the family.   In my view, the figure of     Rs. 1,000\/- per <\/p>\n
     month   towards   maintenance   is   reasonable   and   no   interference   is <\/p>\n
     required.\n<\/p>\n
     9.                  A faint attempt was made by the learned Advocate for the <\/p>\n
     applicant that the respondent has her source of income. This cannot be <\/p>\n
     accepted   because   before   the   learned   Judge   of   the   Family   Court   no <\/p>\n
     evidence   whatsoever   in   this   respect   has   been   produced.     Surely,   if <\/p>\n
     something was placed before the learned Judge of the Family Court, <\/p>\n
     he would have considered it in the proper perspective. To that extent <\/p>\n
     the argument is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:07:34 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
       crra63.08.odt                                                      <\/p>\n
                                                                                                                        5  \/  5 <\/p>\n
     10.                 In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision application <\/p>\n
     cannot be granted and rule is required to be discharged.\n<\/p>\n
     11.                 After the aforesaid order is passed, learned Advocate for <\/p>\n
     the   applicant   seeks   liberty   to   apply   for   reduction   in   the   amount   of <\/p>\n
     maintenance.  In my view no such liberty is required to be granted.  It <\/p>\n
     is open for the applicant to attend to the matter as he may be advised.\n<\/p>\n
                         Rule is discharged.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                             JUDGE<\/p>\n
     wwl<\/p>\n
                                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:07:34 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Ashok vs Sou. Rajni Ashok Ramatkar on 25 September, 2009 Bench: R.Y. Ganoo crra63.08.odt 1 \/ 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 63 OF 2008 Ashok s\/o Mahadeorao Ramatkar aged 41 yrs., Occ. Service, r\/o Methe Colony, Post Chandur Railway, Tah. […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-205520","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAshok vs Sou. Rajni Ashok Ramatkar on 25 September, 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\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ashok vs Sou. Rajni Ashok Ramatkar on 25 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-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=\"2009-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-26T22:24:47+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ashok vs Sou. Rajni Ashok Ramatkar on 25 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-26T22:24:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":935,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Ashok vs Sou. Rajni Ashok Ramatkar on 25 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-26T22:24:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ashok vs Sou. Rajni Ashok Ramatkar on 25 September, 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":"Ashok vs Sou. Rajni Ashok Ramatkar on 25 September, 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\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ashok vs Sou. Rajni Ashok Ramatkar on 25 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-26T22:24:47+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ashok vs Sou. Rajni Ashok Ramatkar on 25 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-26T22:24:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009"},"wordCount":935,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009","name":"Ashok vs Sou. Rajni Ashok Ramatkar on 25 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-26T22:24:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-vs-sou-rajni-ashok-ramatkar-on-25-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ashok vs Sou. Rajni Ashok Ramatkar on 25 September, 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\/205520","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=205520"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205520\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205520"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205520"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205520"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}