{"id":207550,"date":"2009-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009"},"modified":"2016-03-22T01:11:38","modified_gmt":"2016-03-21T19:41:38","slug":"bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Bharathi vs Mahesh Kannan on 18 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bharathi vs Mahesh Kannan on 18 September, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 18\/09\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN\n\nCRP(PD)No.525 of 2009\n\nBharathi\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nVs\n\nMahesh Kannan\t\t\t\t\t... Respondent\n\nPrayer\n\nThis Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the\nlearned Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil dated 1.4.2009 in OS.Diary No.1597\/2009 on\nthe file of the Sub Court, Nagercoil.\n\n!For Petitioner\t  ...\tMr.N.Dilipkumar\n^For Respondent\t  ...\tMr.A.V.Arun\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tThis Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff\/wife against<br \/>\nthe order dated 1.4.1009 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil in<br \/>\nOS.Diary No.1597\/2009, returning the plaint questioning the maintainability of<br \/>\nthe suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2.  The petitioner has filed the above said suit against the<br \/>\nrespondent\/defendant for the following reliefs:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;a. Pass an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from<br \/>\nprosecuting Divorce Petition No.5261\/2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court<br \/>\nof the Republic of Singapore.\n<\/p>\n<p>b.  Declaring that any of the orders passed by the the Subordinate Court of the<br \/>\nRepublic of Singapore in Divorce Petition NO.5261\/2007 hereafter could not be<br \/>\nrecognised in India.\n<\/p>\n<p>c. Pass an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from<br \/>\ninitiating any legal proceedings as against this plaintiff before any courts of<br \/>\nthe Republic of Singapore in future.\n<\/p>\n<p>d. Grant a decree for recovery of Rs.2,25,000\/- spent by the plaintiff to defend<br \/>\nher suit in Singapore from the defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>e. Award the cost of the suit.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3.  The petitioner is the wife of the respondent and their marriage<br \/>\nhad been solemnized on 24.6.1999 at Sivagamiammal Marriage Hall, Vadeseri,<br \/>\nNagercoil as per Hindu Law.  The petitioner gave birth to a male child on<br \/>\n6.6.2004 at Gopala Pillai Hospital, Nagercoil and he is aged about four years.<br \/>\nThe plaintiff and the minor child Mahesh Kannan Jaisivaa were living with the<br \/>\ndefendant at Singapore till 24.8.2006.  Since serious problems arose between<br \/>\nthem, the petitioner returned to India with her child.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4.  According to the petitioner,  she was forcibly sent to India on<br \/>\n24.8.2006, which necessitated her to file an application  before the Women<br \/>\nCommission of Tamil Nadu bearing No.2443\/2007 dated 12.11.2007, for which the<br \/>\nrespondent had sent a conciliation plan subject to eleven conditions dated<br \/>\n30.11.2007.  In the mean while, the respondent had instituted the divorce suit<br \/>\nNo.5261\/2007 before the Subordinate Court of the Republic of Singapore against<br \/>\nthe petitioner along with the matrimonial property plan.  The petitioner had<br \/>\nfiled her defence before the Subordinate Court of the Republic of Singapore and<br \/>\nshe was unable to defend the case spending huge amount for travelling to<br \/>\nSingapore and therefore, she did not defend the said suit in Singapore.<br \/>\nSubsequently, the petitioner filed HMOP.No.15\/2008 before the Sub Court,<br \/>\nNagercoil for restitution of conjugal rights and the respondent had opposed the<br \/>\nsaid petition by filing a counter. Subsequently, he was set exparte and a decree<br \/>\nwas passed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal<br \/>\nrights.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5.  The respondent is residing at Singapore and the petitioner had<br \/>\nsent a notice dated 18.12.2008 to the respondent through her counsel, requiring<br \/>\nthe respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,25,000\/- representing the amount spent by<br \/>\nher to defend the suit at Singapore and informing about the decree passed by the<br \/>\nSub Court, Nagercoil in HMOP.NO.15\/2008 and that the respondent is not entitled<br \/>\nto continue the divorce proceedings in the Subordinate Court of the Republic of<br \/>\nSingapore.  She has also stated in the said notice that any order passed thereon<br \/>\nwill be in violation of principles of natural justice, but the said notice had<br \/>\nbeen returned. The petitioner had now come to know that the Subordinate Court of<br \/>\nthe Republic of Singapore had passed an interim judgement dated 22.10.2008 in<br \/>\nthe said divorce suit, which is likely to be made final in another three months<br \/>\nperiod.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6.  It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent is bound by<br \/>\nthe decree passed in HMOP.No.15\/2008 dated 22.10.2008 and he is not entitled to<br \/>\ncontinue the divorce suit on the file of the Subordinate Court of the Republic<br \/>\nof Singapore.  Therefore, the petitioner has filed the suit for the reliefs<br \/>\nstated supra.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7.  The learned Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil has returned the suit,<br \/>\nquestioning the maintainability of the suit and requiring the petitioner to<br \/>\nstate the provision of law under which the Sub Court at Nagercoil could<br \/>\nentertain the suit and interfere with the divorce proceedings pending on the<br \/>\nfile of the Subordinate Court of the Republic of Singapore.  Aggrieved over the<br \/>\nsame, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8.  Mr.N.Dilipkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner would<br \/>\ncontend that the reasoning given by the court below for returning the  plaint<br \/>\nis unsustainable, as no decree is sought for by the petitioner against the court<br \/>\nat Singapore and it is only as against the respondent. He would submit that the<br \/>\npetitioner though filed a written statement in the divorce suit initiated by the<br \/>\nrespondent, but she has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court<br \/>\nand therefore, the decree if any passed is unenforceable against her.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9.  The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon<br \/>\nthe judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case of<br \/>\nY.Narasimha Rao and others Vs. Y.Venkata Lakshmi and another [1991-3-SCC-451].<br \/>\nThat is a case where the husband played fraud on the foreign court by<br \/>\nrepresenting to it incorrect jurisdictional facts and on the factual situation<br \/>\nthe Honourable Supreme Court has held that even presuming that the foreign court<br \/>\nby its own rules of jurisdiction had rightly entertained the dispute and granted<br \/>\na valid decree of divorce according to its law, since the jurisdiction of the<br \/>\nforum as well as the ground on which the order was passed by the foreign court<br \/>\nis not in accordance with the Act under which the parties were married and the<br \/>\nwife had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the court or consented to its<br \/>\npassing of decree, it cannot be recognised by the courts in India and therefore<br \/>\nit is unenforceable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10.  In yet another decision of the Honourable Supreme Court<br \/>\nrendered in the case of Vikas Aggarwal Vs. Anubha [2002-4-SCC-468], the parties<br \/>\nwere married in India and went to USA and in view of the serious problems arose<br \/>\nbetween them, the husband filed a petition for no default divorce in USA and<br \/>\nnotice was served on the wife and she did not respond, but came back to India<br \/>\nand filed a suit before the Delhi High Court against the husband for separation<br \/>\nand maintenance and the Delhi High court issued an order restraining the husband<br \/>\nfrom proceeding further before the American Court for a period of 30 days and<br \/>\nthereafter, on being informed that the American Court had passed a decree of<br \/>\ndivorce, the Delhi High Court issued an order under Order 10 of CPC directing<br \/>\nthe husband to appear before the Delhi High court, which was challenged before<br \/>\nthe Honourable Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court held that the Order<br \/>\n10 of CPC is an enabling provision providing that the court at first hearing of<br \/>\nthe suits shall ascertain from each party about their pleadings and it does not<br \/>\nin any manner place any bar on the powers of the court to seek any clarification<br \/>\nfrom any party in an appropriate case at any date earlier than to one fixed for<br \/>\nframing issues so as to advance interest of justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11.  I am afraid that the aforesaid decisions cited by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner cannot be applied to the facts of this case.  From<br \/>\nthe facts narrated by the petitioner, it is seen that the respondent has<br \/>\ninstituted the divorce suit earlier to the filing of the petition by the<br \/>\npetitioner for restitution of conjugal rights. Though the decree is passed for<br \/>\nrestitution of conjugal rights even before any decree could be passed in the<br \/>\nsaid divorce suit by the Subordinate Court of the Republic of Singapore, the<br \/>\nquestion for consideration is as to whether the Sub court at Nagercoil has<br \/>\njurisdiction to entertain the suit seeking for the relief of permanent<br \/>\ninjunction restraining the respondent from prosecuting the divorce suit<br \/>\ninstituted earlier to that of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights in<br \/>\nIndia, for declaratory relief that any order passed by the Subordinate Court of<br \/>\nthe Republic of Singapore in Divorce Suit NO.5261\/2007 cannot be recognised<br \/>\ninIndia and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from<br \/>\ninitiating any legal proceedings as against the petitioner before the<br \/>\nSubordinate Court of the Republic of Singapore in future.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t12.  It is settled law that there is a discretion with the court to<br \/>\ngrant a declaratory relief or not under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.<br \/>\nIn regard to the proceedings pending in the foreign court or decision given<br \/>\nthereon, a party is not entitled to a declaratory relief as a matter of right,<br \/>\nas it would infringe upon the undoubted right of the foreign courts to decide<br \/>\nthe cases pending before them.  It would be improper and derogatory to the<br \/>\nprestige of the foreign court if any Sub Court at India holds that the decision<br \/>\nof the foreign court is wrong for one reason or the other and cannot be<br \/>\nrecognised in India.  Even if such suit be entertained and a decision is given,<br \/>\nthe foreign court would certainly ignore the decision in such a case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t13.  In the case of Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadar Rao Raja Seth<br \/>\nHiralal [AIR-1962-SC-527], the Honourable Supreme Court has held that question<br \/>\nof  issuing an order to a party restraining him from proceeding with any other<br \/>\nsuit in a regularly constituted court of law deserves grate care and caution and<br \/>\nsuch an order is not to be made unless absolutely essential for the ends of<br \/>\njustice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t14.  In the instant case, the last relief preferred by the<br \/>\npetitioner for the grant of decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,25,000\/- spent<br \/>\nby her to defend the suit in Singapore can be sought for and in my considered<br \/>\nview, the suit in respect of other reliefs cannot be entertained.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t15.  In view of the aforesaid reasons, the return made by the court<br \/>\nbelow is sustainable and I do no find any illegality or infirmity in the said<br \/>\norder and this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t16.  In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>Srcm<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Bharathi vs Mahesh Kannan on 18 September, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18\/09\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN CRP(PD)No.525 of 2009 Bharathi &#8230; Petitioner Vs Mahesh Kannan &#8230; Respondent Prayer This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-207550","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bharathi vs Mahesh Kannan on 18 September, 2009 - 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\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bharathi vs Mahesh Kannan on 18 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-21T19:41:38+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\\\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bharathi vs Mahesh Kannan on 18 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-21T19:41:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1667,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Bharathi vs Mahesh Kannan on 18 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-21T19:41:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bharathi vs Mahesh Kannan on 18 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":"Bharathi vs Mahesh Kannan on 18 September, 2009 - 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\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bharathi vs Mahesh Kannan on 18 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-21T19:41:38+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\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bharathi vs Mahesh Kannan on 18 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-21T19:41:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009"},"wordCount":1667,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009","name":"Bharathi vs Mahesh Kannan on 18 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-21T19:41:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharathi-vs-mahesh-kannan-on-18-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bharathi vs Mahesh Kannan on 18 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\/207550","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=207550"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207550\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207550"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207550"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207550"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}