{"id":214817,"date":"2009-04-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009"},"modified":"2015-01-19T02:46:03","modified_gmt":"2015-01-18T21:16:03","slug":"k-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"K.Somanathan vs K.Shylaja on 8 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.Somanathan vs K.Shylaja on 8 April, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMat.Appeal.No. 438 of 2007()\n\n\n1. K.SOMANATHAN, 41 YEAR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. K.SHYLAJA, 36 YEARS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.M.MADHU\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR\n\n Dated :08\/04\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                 R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.\n              ---------------------------------------------------------\n                     MAT. APPEAL NO. 438 of 2007\n              ---------------------------------------------------------\n                     Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009\n\n                                  JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Ravikumar, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      The appellant-husband was the petitioner and the respondent-wife<\/p>\n
was the respondent in O.P.No.454 of 2006 filed before the Family Court,<\/p>\n
Malappuram for a decree on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. They are<\/p>\n
Hindus and their marriage was solemnized on 8.5.1997 in accordance with<\/p>\n
the Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. Master Arjun, the only child born<\/p>\n
in their wedlock is now aged 10 years.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         2. Though the O.P. was filed on the grounds of cruelty and<\/p>\n
desertion the former ground was not pressed before the Family Court. The<\/p>\n
appellant and the respondent were examined respectively as PW1 and<\/p>\n
RW1 and Exts.B1 to B7 were marked during the trial. After considering<\/p>\n
the rival contentions and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence<\/p>\n
the Family Court made a wishful remark that in future the parties may<\/p>\n
make a reunion and lead a happy life with their only son and then,<\/p>\n
proceeded to dismiss the O.P. holding that no legally acceptable ground of<\/p>\n
desertion sufficient to snap the marital tie was available. It is aggrieved by<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No. 438\/2007              2<\/span><\/p>\n
the said order of the Family Court that the petitioner-husband preferred<\/p>\n
this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        3. A survey of the marital life of the parties would reveal that out<\/p>\n
of the 11 years of marriage they lived together only for a period of three<\/p>\n
years or thereabouts. The respondent is a post-graduate and now, employed<\/p>\n
in Paramekkavu Devaswom Higher Secondary School and the appellant is<\/p>\n
only a matriculate and cooking is his avocation. He is employed in Sharjah<\/p>\n
and their marriage had taken place when he came back home on leave. He<\/p>\n
had taken her to Gulf once on visiting visa and after a short stint of stay till<\/p>\n
expiry of the period of the said visa she came back home. Thereafter she<\/p>\n
went to her paternal home for confinement, but did not return after<\/p>\n
confinement. In August, 2000 he came on leave and went to her house and<\/p>\n
took the respondent and the child to his house. Soon she returned to her<\/p>\n
paternal home with the child to visit her ailing mother. In fact, it was only<\/p>\n
a ruse to return to her house. Before his departure to his place of avocation<\/p>\n
on 23.9.2000 he made earnest efforts, in vain, to get them back home.<\/p>\n
According to him he pursued his attempts to take them home during<\/p>\n
subsequent years as well whenever he came home on holidays. She did not<\/p>\n
even attend the marriage of his sister which took place on 22.9.2003.<\/p>\n
According to him she left the matrimonial home on 11.9.2000 without any<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No. 438\/2007               3<\/span><\/p>\n
reasonable cause and without his consent and thereafter did not return to<\/p>\n
him. Based on the above and such other relevant aspects he contended that<\/p>\n
it was in total repudiation of the obligation of marriage she abandoned his<\/p>\n
company with an intention to bring the cohabitation permanently to an<\/p>\n
end. It was in the circumstances and with such allegations that the<\/p>\n
appellant\/petitioner approached the Family Court. The respondent-wife<\/p>\n
resisted the same and refuted entire allegations. According to her it was the<\/p>\n
constant nagging by the in-laws leading to constant dissatisfaction and<\/p>\n
mental torture that led to her physical departure from her matrimonial<\/p>\n
home. As stated earlier, the Family Court found the evidence short of<\/p>\n
satisfactory and sufficient to snap the martial tie between them.<\/p>\n
      4. In matrimonial law desertion, to enable a spouse to get divorce on<\/p>\n
that ground, should satisfy certain essential elements such as, factum of<\/p>\n
separation, necessary intention to put an end to matrimonial consortium<\/p>\n
and co-habitation permanently, want of reasonable cause and want of<\/p>\n
consent or against the wish. In this case two of such elements viz., factum<\/p>\n
of separation and want of consent or against wish are very much evident<\/p>\n
from the very pleadings on both the sides. Admittedly, they have been<\/p>\n
living separately since the year 2000. The oral testimony of the appellant<\/p>\n
as PW1 and the respondent as RW1and Exts.A1 and A2 would reveal the<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No. 438\/2007               4<\/span><\/p>\n
said factum of separation and they would also go to show the fact that it<\/p>\n
was without his consent rather, against his wish that the respondent-wife<\/p>\n
had left the matrimonial home and started living separately.<\/p>\n
      5. Now, we may have to look into the evidence adduced and the<\/p>\n
emerging circumstances to see whether the other essential elements are<\/p>\n
also satisfied. They are inter-linked and have to be considered jointly. The<\/p>\n
oral testimony of the appellant as PW1 and the respondent as RW1and<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 and A2 would reveal the fact that the respondent-wife has left her<\/p>\n
matrimonial home and is living separately since September, 2000. As<\/p>\n
stated earlier, such leaving of the matrimonial home and the subsequent<\/p>\n
conduct of the parties revealed from their respective pleadings, oral<\/p>\n
testimonies and Exts.A1 and A2 would go to show that the appellant-<\/p>\n
husband did not give consent, express or implied, to her to leave the<\/p>\n
matrimonial home and to live separately whilst it was she who had<\/p>\n
withdrawn from his society and started to live separately. The question is<\/p>\n
whether the respondent-wife is having animus deserendi viz., an intention<\/p>\n
to put an end to matrimonial consortium and co-habitation permanently.<\/p>\n
While considering the same the conduct of the parties as a whole has to be<\/p>\n
taken into consideration. The initial burden to prove that the desertion was<\/p>\n
without just cause was on the appellant-husband. Besides giving evidence<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No. 438\/2007               5<\/span><\/p>\n
to discharge that burden he had produce Exts.A1 and A2. Ext. A2 is the<\/p>\n
notice sent on her behalf as reply to the notice on behalf of the appellant-<\/p>\n
husband. At this juncture it is to be noted that in the objection filed by the<\/p>\n
respondent it is stated that she had vividly narrated the unendurable<\/p>\n
torturing received by her at his home which created danger to her life and,<\/p>\n
accordingly, prayed to treat the said reply notice as part of the said<\/p>\n
objection. In the circumstances, a scrupulous scanning of Ext.A2 reply<\/p>\n
notice was made to find out the same. However, it is to be said that Ext.P2<\/p>\n
contains no such instances which could be accepted by a prudent mind as<\/p>\n
unendurable torturing or torturing capable to create apprehension of threat<\/p>\n
to life. Except the general and vague statement of ill treatment and nagging<\/p>\n
by the in-laws nothing tangible was made therein. A solitary incident that<\/p>\n
she was once asked to wash the father-in-law’s clothing cannot be<\/p>\n
accepted as ill-treatment of such nature. In fact, it carries no such instances<\/p>\n
which would justify her action in leaving the matrimonial home and living<\/p>\n
separately. It is apposite to note in this context that her evidence and<\/p>\n
pleadings would undoubtedly show that she got no complaints of torture or<\/p>\n
ill-treatment by the appellant-husband. It is also fact that hitherto she made<\/p>\n
no complaints of torture or ill-treatment by her in-laws before any court or<\/p>\n
any competent authorities. Leaving the matrimonial home and withdrawing<\/p>\n
the society of the other spouse for over a period of more than eight years,<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No. 438\/2007               6<\/span><\/p>\n
without reasonable cause, can only lead to an invariable inference of<\/p>\n
desertion. Thus taking the conduct of the parties as a whole and the<\/p>\n
emerging circumstances and evidence would suggest a total repudiation of<\/p>\n
obligation of marriage and abandonment          with an intention to bring<\/p>\n
matrimonial consortium and co-habitation permanently to an end, without<\/p>\n
any reasonable cause, on the side of the respondent-wife. In other words,<\/p>\n
the irresistible conclusion in the instant case can only be that the<\/p>\n
respondent-wife is guilty of deserting the appellant-husband and as such,<\/p>\n
he has succeeded in establishing the ground of desertion against the<\/p>\n
respondent-wife. While testifying she had revealed that she continues to<\/p>\n
have love towards the appellant-husband and made an offer to live with<\/p>\n
him provided he lives separately from his parents. In the circumstances of<\/p>\n
the case we have no hesitation in holding that it is nothing but a hollow<\/p>\n
statement and was not made in good faith. Non-acceptance of such<\/p>\n
unreasonable condition cannot terminate the desertion. We are also<\/p>\n
satisfied that the appellant-husband is not taking any advantage of his own<\/p>\n
wrong for the purpose of getting relief on the ground of desertion and<\/p>\n
therefore, there is nothing to disentitle him under Section 23(1)(a) of the<\/p>\n
Hindu Marriage Act,1955 to obtain a decree of divorce on the said ground.<\/p>\n
       In the result:\n<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No. 438\/2007               7<\/span><\/p>\n
      a)    the appeal is allowed.\n\n      b)    the impugned order is set aside.\n\n      c)    decree for dissolution of marriage is granted under\n            Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the\n<\/pre>\n
            marriage between the appellant and the respondent
\n            solemnised on 8.5.1997 is hereby dissolved.\n<\/p>\n
      d)    the parties are directed to suffer their respective
\n            costs throughout.\n<\/p>\n
We note with satisfaction the wholesome conduct of the appellant\/husband<\/p>\n
who has deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000\/- in the State Bank of India<\/p>\n
(Code No. 10564), Ernakulam by Term Deposit No.TD CS\/022 0354296<\/p>\n
dated 8.4.2009 in the name of the child born in the matrimony. That<\/p>\n
Deposit Receipt is handed over to the counsel for the respondent in court.<\/p>\n
The counsel further submits that the appellant agrees to and shall hereafter<\/p>\n
pay to the child monthly maintenance at the rate of of Rs.1,000\/- even<\/p>\n
without direction of any court. We make record of these submissions.<\/p>\n
                                         (R. BASANT)
\n                                              JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                      (C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
\n                                             JUDGE<\/p>\n
sp\/<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No. 438\/2007    8<\/span><\/p>\n
                               R. BASANT &
\n                               C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
                               MAT. APPEAL
\n                               NO.438\/2007<\/p>\n
                               JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                               8th April, 2009<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No. 438\/2007    9<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.Somanathan vs K.Shylaja on 8 April, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Mat.Appeal.No. 438 of 2007() 1. K.SOMANATHAN, 41 YEAR, … Petitioner Vs 1. K.SHYLAJA, 36 YEARS, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.N.M.MADHU For Respondent :SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR The Hon’ble MR. Justice R.BASANT The Hon’ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR Dated :08\/04\/2009 O R […]<\/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-214817","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Somanathan vs K.Shylaja on 8 April, 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-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Somanathan vs K.Shylaja on 8 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-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=\"2009-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-18T21:16:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Somanathan vs K.Shylaja on 8 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-18T21:16:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1560,\"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-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009\",\"name\":\"K.Somanathan vs K.Shylaja on 8 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-18T21:16:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Somanathan vs K.Shylaja on 8 April, 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.Somanathan vs K.Shylaja on 8 April, 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-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Somanathan vs K.Shylaja on 8 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-18T21:16:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Somanathan vs K.Shylaja on 8 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-18T21:16:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009"},"wordCount":1560,"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-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009","name":"K.Somanathan vs K.Shylaja on 8 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-18T21:16:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-somanathan-vs-k-shylaja-on-8-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Somanathan vs K.Shylaja on 8 April, 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\/214817","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=214817"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214817\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214817"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214817"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214817"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}