{"id":219103,"date":"2008-07-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-01-10T20:35:47","modified_gmt":"2018-01-10T15:05:47","slug":"hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Hetalben vs State on 25 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Hetalben vs State on 25 July, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.N.Devani,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCR.A\/1867\/2007\t 6\/ 6\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1867 of 2007\n \n\nwith\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1868 of 2007\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n \n \n==========================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n==========================================\n\n\n \n\nHETALBEN\nRAKESHKUMAR CHAVADA - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nHRIDAY BUCH for Applicant(s) : 1, \nMR KP RAVAL,\nADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR RAJESH K KANANI\nfor Respondent(s) : 2, \n==========================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 25\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\n\tfacts of the case stated briefly are that the petitioner herein had<br \/>\n\tfiled an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\n\tProcedure, 1973 (the Code) before the learned Judicial Magistrate<br \/>\n\tFirst Class, Junagadh praying for a monthly maintenance of<br \/>\n\tRs.10,000\/-.  By a judgement and order dated 26th June,<br \/>\n\t2006, the learned Judicial Magistrate partly allowed the application<br \/>\n\tand directed the respondent No.2, husband of the present petitioner<br \/>\n\tto pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000\/- to the petitioner with<br \/>\n\teffect from the date of the application i.e. 13th<br \/>\n\tDecember, 2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBeing<br \/>\n\taggrieved by the aforesaid order, both the petitioner as well as the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.2 filed Revision Applications before the learned<br \/>\n\tPresiding Officer, 2nd Fast Track Judge, Junagadh being<br \/>\n\tCriminal Revision Applications No.94 of 2006 and 111 of 2006<br \/>\n\trespectively, challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned<br \/>\n\tJudicial Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBy<br \/>\n\ta common order dated 17th August, 2007, the learned<br \/>\n\tPresiding Officer, 2nd Fast Track Judge, Junagadh<br \/>\n\trejected the application filed by the petitioner and partly allowed<br \/>\n\tthe application filed by the respondent No.2, whereby he reduced the<br \/>\n\tmaintenance to Rs.2,000\/- per month instead of Rs.3,000\/- per month.<br \/>\n\t Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition<br \/>\n\tchallenging the aforesaid order passed in both the Revision<br \/>\n\tApplications.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\n\tSpecial Criminal Application No.1867 of 2007, the petitioner has<br \/>\n\tchallenged the order passed in Criminal Revision Application No.94<br \/>\n\tof 2006, whereby her application for enhancement of maintenance to<br \/>\n\tthe tune of Rs.10,000\/- as claimed in the original application<br \/>\n\tinstead of Rs.3,000\/- as awarded by the learned Magistrate, has been<br \/>\n\trejected.  In Special Criminal Application No.1868 of 2007, the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner has challenged the order passed in Criminal Revision<br \/>\n\tApplication No.111 of 2006, whereby the amount of maintenance has<br \/>\n\tbeen reduced from Rs.3,000\/- to Rs.2,000\/-.  As both the petitions<br \/>\n\tinvolve common facts and arise out of a common judgement, both the<br \/>\n\tpetitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this<br \/>\n\tcommon judgement.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.Hriday<br \/>\n\tBuch, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.2 herein had a monthly income of Rs.25,000\/- &#8211;<br \/>\n\tRs.30,000\/- and in the circumstances, both the Courts below were not<br \/>\n\tjustified in awarding an amount lower than that claimed towards<br \/>\n\tmaintenance by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn<br \/>\n\tthe other hand, Mr.Rajesh Kanani, learned advocate for the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.2 has opposed both the applications and has submitted<br \/>\n\tthat, on the contrary, the amount awarded is on the higher side as<br \/>\n\tit is the specific case of the respondent No.2 that he is unemployed<br \/>\n\tand has no income whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis<br \/>\n\tCourt has considered the submissions advanced by the learned<br \/>\n\tadvocates for the parties and has also perused the record of the<br \/>\n\tcase.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAs<br \/>\n\tcan be seen from the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\n\tJunagadh, the learned Magistrate has not believed the say of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner that the income of the respondent No.2 is between<br \/>\n\tRs.25,000\/- and Rs.30,000\/-.  However, the learned Judicial<br \/>\n\tMagistrate has come to the conclusion that the respondent No.2 is an<br \/>\n\table-bodied person and was competent to earn a living.  He has, on<br \/>\n\tfacts, held that the respondent No.2 has been negligent in providing<br \/>\n\tmaintenance to the petitioner and that the petitioner is entitled to<br \/>\n\ta reasonable amount of maintenance.  However, the learned Judicial<br \/>\n\tMagistrate has, without arriving at any finding as regards the<br \/>\n\tmonthly income of the respondent No.2, awarded a sum of Rs.3,000\/-<br \/>\n\tper month to the petitioner as maintenance.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\n\tlearned Presiding Officer &amp; 2nd Fast Track Judge,<br \/>\n\tJunagadh has found that there was no justification insofar as the<br \/>\n\tclaim of Rs.10,000\/- per month made by the petitioner is concerned.<br \/>\n\tHe has found that there was nothing on record to establish that the<br \/>\n\tincome of the respondent No.2 was Rs.30,000\/- as claimed by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner.  The learned Presiding Officer has further come to the<br \/>\n\tconclusion that the respondent No.2 being an Engineer, would be<br \/>\n\thaving a minimum income of Rs.200 to Rs.250 per day and accordingly,<br \/>\n\tmust be earning approximately Rs.6,000\/- to Rs.7,000\/- per month.<br \/>\n\tThe learned Presiding Officer has, accordingly, come to the<br \/>\n\tconclusion that the amount of Rs.3,000\/- awarded as maintenance by<br \/>\n\tthe learned Judicial Magistrate was on a higher side and<br \/>\n\taccordingly, reduced the same to Rs.2,000\/- per month.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tConsidering<br \/>\n\tthe findings recorded by the Courts below, this Court is of the view<br \/>\n\tthat the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned Presiding<br \/>\n\tOfficer appears to be slightly on the lower side.  The learned<br \/>\n\tPresiding Officer has observed that the respondent No.2 must be<br \/>\n\tearning at least Rs.200 to Rs.250 per day, and has, accordingly,<br \/>\n\tcomputed the income of the respondent No.2 to be between Rs.6,000\/-<br \/>\n\tto Rs.7,000\/- per month, and awarded one-third amount of the lower<br \/>\n\trange of the said income i.e. Rs.2,000\/- to the petitioner towards<br \/>\n\tmaintenance.  If we compute the monthly income of the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.2 by taking his daily income to be Rs.250\/-, the monthly income<br \/>\n\twould come to Rs.7,500\/-.  Hence, with a view to arrive at a<br \/>\n\treasonable figure, the income of the respondent No.2 may be taken as<br \/>\n\tRs.250\/- per day, which means that his monthly income would be<br \/>\n\tRs.7,500\/-.  Taking the formula adopted by the learned Presiding<br \/>\n\tOfficer, viz., that the wife is entitled to one-third of the monthly<br \/>\n\tincome, the petitioner would be entitled to Rs.2,500\/- per month,<br \/>\n\twhich appears to be a reasonable figure, considering the facts and<br \/>\n\tcircumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor<br \/>\n\tthe foregoing reasons, Special Criminal Application No.1867 of 2007<br \/>\n\tfails and is, accordingly, dismissed.  Rule is discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHowever,<br \/>\n\tSpecial Criminal Application No.1868 of 2007 partly succeeds and is,<br \/>\n\taccordingly, partly allowed.  The impugned order dated 17th<br \/>\n\tAugust, 2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 2nd<br \/>\n\tFast Track Judge, Junagadh in Criminal Revision Application No.111<br \/>\n\tof 2006 is hereby partly modified, by enhancing the monthly<br \/>\n\tmaintenance to Rs.2,500\/- instead of Rs.2,000\/-.  Rule is made<br \/>\n\tabsolute accordingly to the aforesaid extent.\n<\/p>\n<p>[HARSHA<br \/>\nDEVANI, J.]<\/p>\n<p>parmar*<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Hetalben vs State on 25 July, 2008 Author: H.N.Devani,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCR.A\/1867\/2007 6\/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1867 of 2007 with SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1868 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ========================================== 1 Whether [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-219103","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Hetalben vs State on 25 July, 2008 - 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\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hetalben vs State on 25 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-10T15:05:47+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hetalben vs State on 25 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-10T15:05:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1010,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Hetalben vs State on 25 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-10T15:05:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hetalben vs State on 25 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Hetalben vs State on 25 July, 2008 - 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\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hetalben vs State on 25 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-10T15:05:47+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hetalben vs State on 25 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-10T15:05:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008"},"wordCount":1010,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008","name":"Hetalben vs State on 25 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-10T15:05:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hetalben-vs-state-on-25-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hetalben vs State on 25 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/219103","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=219103"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219103\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219103"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219103"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219103"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}