{"id":205975,"date":"2009-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009"},"modified":"2018-12-19T11:40:06","modified_gmt":"2018-12-19T06:10:06","slug":"k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"K.Vasantha Kumari vs Jaya Alfred on 26 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.Vasantha Kumari vs Jaya Alfred on 26 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 28287 of 2004(P)\n\n\n1. K.VASANTHA KUMARI, W\/O.RAVEENDRANATH,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. JAYA ALFRED, W\/O.LATE K.ALFRED,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. SHINEN ALFRED, D\/O.LATE E.ALFRED,\n\n3. CHRISTY ALFRED (MINOR),\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.B.PRADEEP\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN\n\n Dated :26\/08\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                         P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.\n\n                     == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                         WP(C).No.28287 of 2004-P.\n                     = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n                   Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009.\n\n                              J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      Petitioner is the defendant in OS.No.181\/2002 on the file of the Sub<\/p>\n
Court, Neyyattinkara. The respondents herein, who are the widow and<\/p>\n
children of late K.Alfred, instituted the above suit seeking a decree for<\/p>\n
realisation of a sum of Rs.2,85,000\/- along with interest. According to the<\/p>\n
respondents, the petitioner borrowed the said amount from the late husband<\/p>\n
of the first respondent and in discharge of the said liability eight cheques,<\/p>\n
which were marked as Exts.A1 to A8 before the trial court, were issued and<\/p>\n
that despite the request to pay back the amount and a lawyer notice caused<\/p>\n
on 29.8.2002 the liability was not discharged.\n<\/p>\n
      2.      The petitioner inter-alia contended that there was some<\/p>\n
monetary transaction between the husband of the petitioner and the husband<\/p>\n
of the first respondent some time back in 1994 and that Exts.A1 to A8 were<\/p>\n
blank cheques issued by the petitioner as security for the money advanced<\/p>\n
and that the liabilities were later discharged and that the cheques so issued<\/p>\n
WP(C).No.28287 of 2004-P.\n<\/p>\n
                                    -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
were not returned on the pretext that the cheques were misplaced. Without<\/p>\n
the consent of the petitioner material alterations were made in Exts.A1 to<\/p>\n
A8 by filling up the columns and the suit was instituted and that there is no<\/p>\n
debtor-creditor relationship between the petitioner and the husband of the<\/p>\n
first respondent and that the suit was instituted at the instance of a Chartered<\/p>\n
Accountant who was on loggerheads with the petitioner and prayed for<\/p>\n
dismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
       3.    The suit was posted for trial in the list on 6.2.2004 and<\/p>\n
thereafter the first respondent and two other witnesses were examined on<\/p>\n
the side of the respondents. The documents were also marked as Exts.A1 to<\/p>\n
A8. The petitioner was examined as Dw1. Two other witnesses were also<\/p>\n
examined on her side. Exts.B1 to B3 and X1 were marked. On 21.6.2004<\/p>\n
petitioner filed Ext.P1 petition seeking an order to send Exts.A1 to A8<\/p>\n
cheques to the forensic expert to ascertain the old-age of the writings in the<\/p>\n
cheques. It was alleged in the affidavit that the respondents shaped their<\/p>\n
case at the time of giving evidence and the evidence was adduced to the<\/p>\n
effect that Exts.A1 to A8 were written by the husband of the petitioner and<\/p>\n
signed by the petitioner in the year 2001in the presence Pws.1 to 3 and that<\/p>\n
WP(C).No.28287 of 2004-P.\n<\/p>\n
                                      -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
if the age of the writings of the cheques is ascertained, it could be<\/p>\n
established that the case set up by the respondents is false and vexatious.<\/p>\n
      4.     Respondent resisted the petition by stating that the main plea of<\/p>\n
the petition is one of discharge and that the petition was filed with an<\/p>\n
intention to protract the proceedings and prayed for dismissal of the suit.<\/p>\n
      5.     The learned Sub Judge by Ext.P2 order dated 2.9.2004<\/p>\n
dismissed Ext.P1 .       The relevant portion of Ext.P2 in para.8 reads as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
           “[T]he averments in the affidavit that the plaintiffs coined<\/p>\n
           their case only at the time of evidence and hence the<\/p>\n
           petitioner was disabled from filing the present petition before<\/p>\n
           the commencement of trial does not strike as reliable or<\/p>\n
           convincing. The case was listed for evidence on 6.2.2004 and<\/p>\n
           the defendant was examined on 25.2.2004 and thereafter the<\/p>\n
           present petition has been filed. The explanation for the delay<\/p>\n
           in filing the petition is absolutely unsatisfactory. The petition<\/p>\n
           is highly belated and the contention by the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
           the respondent that the petition has been filed only to protract<\/p>\n
           the proceedings cannot be dismissed as unfounded.            The<\/p>\n
           conclusion follows that being highly belated and opposed to<\/p>\n
           the contention of the written statement the present petition to<\/p>\n
WP(C).No.28287 of 2004-P.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                     -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
           send the cheques in question to ascertain the age of the<\/p>\n
           writings on them by the Forensic Expert is not allowable at<\/p>\n
           the fag end of the trial.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       6.    12 days thereafter, Ext.P3 petition was filed with a plea to<\/p>\n
reopen the case for evidence and to order summons to the witnesses. It was<\/p>\n
with a plea that the witness schedule was filed on 20.1.2004 and steps were<\/p>\n
taken on 27.3.2004. But the steps were returned unserved and again steps<\/p>\n
were taken on 24.6.2004 and in response to the summons, witnesses were<\/p>\n
present but documents called for could not have been brought. Hence the<\/p>\n
case was adjourned to 21.6.2004 for production of the documents and on<\/p>\n
that day the summons were not returned. Then the case was again posted<\/p>\n
for return of summons to 28.6.2004 and that those facts were not brought to<\/p>\n
the notice of the court while Ext.P2 order was passed and it was highly<\/p>\n
necessary to reopen the case and to take evidence from the witnesses.<\/p>\n
       7.    Ext.P3 petition was dismissed by Ext.P4 order dated 15.9.2004.<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
             “Heard. Highly belated. Dismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
Now the legality and correctness of Exts.P2 and P4 are assailed by this<\/p>\n
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n
WP(C).No.28287 of 2004-P.\n<\/p>\n
                                     -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
      8.     Both petitioner and respondents were heard.       It is the very<\/p>\n
consistent case of the petitioner that the respondents shaped their case at the<\/p>\n
time of giving evidence and the evidence was adduced to the effect that<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A8 were written by the husband of the petitioner and signed by<\/p>\n
the petitioner in the year 2001 in the presence of Pws.1 to 3. Curiously,<\/p>\n
neither the pleadings nor the evidence on record was produced along with<\/p>\n
the writ petition.      So, it has become rather difficult to have a correct<\/p>\n
appraisal of the facts and to conclude whether the plea that the respondents<\/p>\n
had shaped their case at the time of evidence is correct or not. However,<\/p>\n
having heard either side, it didn’t appear that there was no much shaping of<\/p>\n
the case at the time of evidence. It was specifically contended by the<\/p>\n
respondents that those cheques were issued in the year 2001. It is true that<\/p>\n
there is no plea that as to who wrote the disputed cheques. It is not disputed<\/p>\n
that such minute aspects need not be pleaded. So the plea that the delay in<\/p>\n
filing the petition is because of the shaping of the case at the time of<\/p>\n
evidence is not at all correct and lacks bonafides. However, since the<\/p>\n
petitioner herself was examined long before the filing of Exts.P1 and P3, at<\/p>\n
my request, the learned counsel for the petitioner read out the evidence of<\/p>\n
WP(C).No.28287 of 2004-P.\n<\/p>\n
                                     -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
the petitioner who was examined as DW1. It is pertinent to note that the<\/p>\n
petitioner didn’t care to deny the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 to the effect that<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A8 were issued in the year 2001 and that those were written by<\/p>\n
the husband of the petitioner. Such being the nature of the evidence of the<\/p>\n
petitioner, the request of the petitioner to forward the cheques to the<\/p>\n
Forensic Science Laboratory to call for a report regarding the old-age of<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A8 are not at all warranted. Adding to that the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the petitioner is not able to say whether technologies are available in the<\/p>\n
Forensic Science Laboratory to ascertain the old-age of the writings in a<\/p>\n
cheque. According to the learned counsel, let the cheques be sent to the<\/p>\n
Forensic Science Laboratory and let them report whether technologies are<\/p>\n
available to report the exact old-age of the writings or not. I am afraid to<\/p>\n
appreciate the arguments. The procedures are not at all intended to test the<\/p>\n
chances. Even if it is assumed that the Forensic Science Laboratory could<\/p>\n
report the old-age of the writings that would only be an opinion evidence<\/p>\n
and it cannot be given precedence over the oral evidence.<\/p>\n
       9.     In Ext.P3 petition, the prayer is to reopen the case for evidence<\/p>\n
and summons to the witness was sought for. According to the learned<\/p>\n
WP(C).No.28287 of 2004-P.\n<\/p>\n
                                    -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner, the purpose of the further evidence is to establish<\/p>\n
that the cheques were issued in 1994 as contended by the petitioner.<\/p>\n
Curiously, the petitioner didn’t care to produce a list of witness or the list of<\/p>\n
documents so as to ascertain what is the scope of the further evidence<\/p>\n
sought for. However, the learned counsel submitted that the documents<\/p>\n
sought to be produced by the witnesses and the purpose of the examination<\/p>\n
of the witnesses is to establish that Exts.A1 to A8 cheques were issued in<\/p>\n
the year 1994. The same purpose as in Ext.P1. According to the learned<\/p>\n
counsel, the cheque issue register and connected records, if any, would<\/p>\n
establish the case of the petitioner. For that reason, I find that it is not at all<\/p>\n
necessary to call for the records from the bank. The petitioner could have<\/p>\n
either obtained a copy or extract of the said documents from the bank and<\/p>\n
produced. It is pertinent to note that there is no case that copies wouldn’t<\/p>\n
serve the purpose and originals are required. If those cheques were issued<\/p>\n
from the bank in the year 1994, issuance of the next serial number of the<\/p>\n
cheques and the encashment of the same could have been revealed from the<\/p>\n
pass book maintained by the petitioner. The petitioner didn’t show any<\/p>\n
reason for the non-production of the pass book which would be normally in<\/p>\n
WP(C).No.28287 of 2004-P.\n<\/p>\n
                                   -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
her possession.\n<\/p>\n
      10.    Since it was specifically averred in the plaint that the cheques<\/p>\n
were issued in the year 2001, if the petitioner had got a case that those<\/p>\n
cheques were issued in the year 1994 and was so earnest and in case the<\/p>\n
pass book which would have contained all these particulars were not in the<\/p>\n
possession of the petitioner, she should have earlier applied for the<\/p>\n
production of the documents from the bank or produced the copies after<\/p>\n
obtaining it. As I mentioned earlier, the suit was posted for trial in the list<\/p>\n
on 6.2.2004. The issues might have been framed long back. The petitioner<\/p>\n
had not shown any reason for waiting till the evidence of the respondents<\/p>\n
were over and after examining the petitioner herself.          In the above<\/p>\n
circumstance, I fail to find that Exts.P2 and P4 orders were any way<\/p>\n
erroneous.\n<\/p>\n
      11.    As mentioned earlier, the petitioner had not cared to produce a<\/p>\n
copy of the plaint, written statement or the evidences so far recorded or the<\/p>\n
copy of the list of documents and the purpose for which it was brought in.<\/p>\n
Since those documents were not produced, it has become rather difficult to<\/p>\n
appreciate the back ground. By going through Exts.P1 and P3 petitions and<\/p>\n
WP(C).No.28287 of 2004-P.\n<\/p>\n
                                   -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Exts.P2 and P4 orders thereon, prima facie, those orders didn’t appear to be<\/p>\n
erroneous or perverse. On the other hand good reasoning is given to justify<\/p>\n
the orders. The petitioner has got other two defences, namely material<\/p>\n
alteration and discharge. I find little material to interfere with Ext.P2 and<\/p>\n
P4 orders in exercise of the powers conferred on this Court under Article<\/p>\n
227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit.<\/p>\n
Accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                        P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
Kvs\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.Vasantha Kumari vs Jaya Alfred on 26 August, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 28287 of 2004(P) 1. K.VASANTHA KUMARI, W\/O.RAVEENDRANATH, … Petitioner Vs 1. JAYA ALFRED, W\/O.LATE K.ALFRED, … Respondent 2. SHINEN ALFRED, D\/O.LATE E.ALFRED, 3. CHRISTY ALFRED (MINOR), For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.PRADEEP For Respondent :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP The Hon’ble […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-205975","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Vasantha Kumari vs Jaya Alfred on 26 August, 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\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Vasantha Kumari vs Jaya Alfred on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-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=\"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-19T06:10:06+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Vasantha Kumari vs Jaya Alfred on 26 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-19T06:10:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1891,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009\",\"name\":\"K.Vasantha Kumari vs Jaya Alfred on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-19T06:10:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Vasantha Kumari vs Jaya Alfred on 26 August, 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":"K.Vasantha Kumari vs Jaya Alfred on 26 August, 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\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Vasantha Kumari vs Jaya Alfred on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-19T06:10:06+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Vasantha Kumari vs Jaya Alfred on 26 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-19T06:10:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009"},"wordCount":1891,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009","name":"K.Vasantha Kumari vs Jaya Alfred on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-19T06:10:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-vasantha-kumari-vs-jaya-alfred-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Vasantha Kumari vs Jaya Alfred on 26 August, 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\/205975","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=205975"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205975\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205975"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205975"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205975"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}