{"id":22002,"date":"2008-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008"},"modified":"2017-04-01T11:41:13","modified_gmt":"2017-04-01T06:11:13","slug":"sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Sulaiman vs Rabiya on 26 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sulaiman vs Rabiya on 26 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRP(Family Court) No. 61 of 2008()\n\n\n1. SULAIMAN, S\/O.MUHAMMED, MANU,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. RABIYA, D\/O.SAIDALAVI,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.ASOKAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :26\/02\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                               R. BASANT, J.\n\n                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n                       R.P.F.C.No.   61  of   2008\n\n                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n              Dated this the 26th  day of  February, 2008\n\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       The   revision   petitioner   herein   has   suffered   an   order<\/p>\n
directing   him   to   pay   maintenance   to   his   two   children,   who   are<\/p>\n
represented by the respondent herein.  Significantly the children,<\/p>\n
the   claimants,   have   not   been   arrayed   as   parties   in   this   revision<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2.     Paternity   is   not   disputed.     The   children,   born   to   the<\/p>\n
petitioner, had come to the Court through their mother claiming<\/p>\n
maintenance   in   the   year   1999.     As   per   order   dt.   26.4.2001   in<\/p>\n
M.C. 522 of 1999 they were granted maintenance at the rate of<\/p>\n
Rs.500\/- each   p.m.     The said order was an ex parte order, it is<\/p>\n
submitted.   The ex parte order was not challenged.   Long later,<\/p>\n
the claimants\/children, when they were at the age of 9 years and<\/p>\n
8   years,   came   to   the   court   in   2004     claiming   enhancement   of<\/p>\n
maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C.   In that petition also the<\/p>\n
petitioner remained ex parte.    An order was passed on 11.2.2005<\/p>\n
R.P.F.C.No.   61  of   2008<\/p>\n
                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
enhancing   maintenance   amount   to   Rs.1,000\/-   each   to   the   children.<\/p>\n
Long later, an application was filed to set aside the ex parte order along<\/p>\n
with an application to condone the same.   When those petitions came<\/p>\n
up, steps were not taken to serve notice on the guardian of the children,<\/p>\n
i.e. the wife of the petitioner.     The petitioner was not present and he<\/p>\n
was not represented also.  In those petitions also the children were not<\/p>\n
arrayed as respondents.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       3.     Be   that   as   it   may,   the   application   to   set   aside   the   ex   parte<\/p>\n
order as also the petition for condonation of the  delay were dismissed<\/p>\n
as per separate orders dt. 26.3.2007, copies of which are produced as<\/p>\n
Annex.   2   and   3.     The   petitioner   was   not   present.     There   was   no<\/p>\n
representation on his behalf.   The notice issued to the guardian of the<\/p>\n
children had been returned with the endorsement that there is no such<\/p>\n
person as per the report of by the police and the postman.  The learned<\/p>\n
Judge   of   the   Family   Court,   instead   of   dismissing   the   application,<\/p>\n
closed the proceedings with the observation that the petitioner shall be<\/p>\n
at liberty to file fresh C.M.P. with full and correct postal address of the<\/p>\n
guardian of the claimants\/children.\n<\/p>\n
\nR.P.F.C.No.   61  of   2008<\/p>\n
                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
       4.  The petitioner did not challenge those orders.  He did not take<\/p>\n
any further steps for a long period of time.  At long last, on 27.7.2007<\/p>\n
he filed C.M.P. 1934 of 2007 to set aside the ex parte order.   Such a<\/p>\n
fresh petition was again filed without any application for condonation<\/p>\n
of delay.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       5.     The   learned   Judge   of   the   Family   Court,   by   Annex.4   order,<\/p>\n
proceeded   to   dismiss   the   application   on   the   ground   that   such   fresh<\/p>\n
application   filed   is   not   accompanied   by   any   application   for<\/p>\n
condonation of delay and the petition is hence barred  by limitation.<\/p>\n
       6.     When   Annex.A   order   was   passed,   the   petitioner   did   not<\/p>\n
choose   to   challenge   the   said   order.     Instead,   the   petitioner   filed<\/p>\n
Annex.10   petition   for   review   of   the   order   passed   as   Annex.4.     The<\/p>\n
learned   Judge   of   the   Family   Court   by  the   impugned   order   dismissed<\/p>\n
the said application on two grounds.   First  of all it was held that the<\/p>\n
court lacks jurisdiction to review its own order.   Secondly it was held<\/p>\n
that on merits also the application is not maintainable.<\/p>\n
       7.  The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order.<\/p>\n
What is the grievance?  On merits there appears to be a little scope for<\/p>\n
challenge as the maintenance case was lodged in 1999 and an amount<\/p>\n
R.P.F.C.No.   61  of   2008<\/p>\n
                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
of   Rs.500\/-   each   p.m.   was   awarded   to   the   children,   who   must   have<\/p>\n
been aged only about 4 years and 3 years then.  In 2004 the claim was<\/p>\n
filed and the children were aged 9 years and 8 years.   The amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.500\/- awarded earlier was enhanced to Rs.1,000\/-  p.m.  This is the<\/p>\n
enhancement that was granted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       8.  About the initial application to set aside the ex parte order and<\/p>\n
the petition to condone the delay, when they came up for hearing  on<\/p>\n
26.3.2007,   there   was   no   representation   for   the   petitioner.     The<\/p>\n
petitioner   was absent.    He had not  taken steps  to issue notice to  the<\/p>\n
respondent.   Significantly  it must be noted that the children were not<\/p>\n
shown as respondents and their mother alone was shown as respondent.<\/p>\n
Notices  issued   to   her   were    returned   with   the   endorsement   that   such<\/p>\n
person   is   not   available.     Petitioner   has   no   explanation   to   offer   as   to<\/p>\n
why the petitioner was absent and why he did not challenge Annexs. 2<\/p>\n
and 3 orders.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       9.  Be that as it may, his next grievance is about Annex.4 order.<\/p>\n
Annex.4  order  was  passed  in  the petition    filed  by him to  get the ex<\/p>\n
parte   order   set   aside.     The   ex   parte   order   was   admittedly   passed   on<\/p>\n
11.2.2005 and there is  no valid explanation whatsoever as to why the<\/p>\n
R.P.F.C.No.   61  of   2008<\/p>\n
                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
application filed on 27.7.2007 was not accompanied by any application<\/p>\n
to condone the delay in filing the same.   The petitioner was bound to<\/p>\n
explain  the   delay.     The  ex  parte   order  was   passed   in   February,  2005<\/p>\n
and the application to set aside the ex parte order was  filed initially in<\/p>\n
2006 and the renewed application, C.M.P. 1934 of 2007 was filed only<\/p>\n
on 27.7.2007.   The petitioner’s explanation that he thought that in view<\/p>\n
of Annexs.2 and 3 orders, no further application for condonation need<\/p>\n
at all   be filed   cannot  be   swallowed  naively   by any prudent  mind.<\/p>\n
Less said about the plea, the better.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       10.     The   petitioner   raises   a   further   grievance   that   the   learned<\/p>\n
Judge of the Family Court  had numbered the  application  to  set  aside<\/p>\n
the ex parte order without insisting on an application for condonation<\/p>\n
of delay.   The petitioner puts the blame on the court for his not filing<\/p>\n
an   application   for   condonation   of   delay.     This   contention   also   lacks<\/p>\n
merit and bonafides.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       11.     The   learned   Judge   of   the   Family   Court   in   passing   the<\/p>\n
impugned   order   had   taken   the   view   that   the   court   has   no   power   to<\/p>\n
review its own orders.  The Family Court follows the procedure in the<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure Code and a power of review to alter decisions on<\/p>\n
R.P.F.C.No.   61  of   2008<\/p>\n
                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
merit   must   definitely   be   founded   on   some   specific   provision   of   the<\/p>\n
Statute.  There is no such provision in the Cr.P.C. at all.  The decision<\/p>\n
in   Kunhimohammed    v.   Nafeesa<\/a>    (2003 (1) KLT 364) is relied on<\/p>\n
by the learned  counsel  vehemently.   But  that  decision  cannot  lead  to<\/p>\n
the   conclusion   that   a   decision   taken   on   merits   can   be   reviewed   by  a<\/p>\n
criminal   court,   inspite   of   the   stipulations   in   Section   362   Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
without   any specific provision.        The dictum  in   Kunhimohammed<\/p>\n
(supra)  evidently refers to incidental powers which must be held to be<\/p>\n
available   to   make   conferment   of   the   original   powers   real   and<\/p>\n
meaningful.  The said decision is not authority for the proposition that<\/p>\n
Section 362 Cr.P.C. can be ignored and a criminal court dealing with<\/p>\n
an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can invent in itself a power to<\/p>\n
review an earlier order passed on merits.   The said contention cannot<\/p>\n
also be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       12.  No other contentions are raised.  I am in these circumstances<\/p>\n
satisfied that the impugned order does not warrant any interference.<\/p>\n
       13.     It   will   not   be   inapposite   in   this   context   to   remind   myself<\/p>\n
about   the   nature,   scope,   contours,   quality   and   sweep   of   revisional<\/p>\n
powers   of   superintendence   and   correction   which   this   court   has   as   a<\/p>\n
R.P.F.C.No.   61  of   2008<\/p>\n
                                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
court   of   revision.     It   is   by   now     trite     that   any   and   every   error<\/p>\n
committed   by   a   subordinate   court     shall   not   ipso   facto   persuade   this<\/p>\n
Court   to   invoke   such   revisional   jurisdiction   of   superintendence   and<\/p>\n
correction.  The error must be gross.  Such error must have resulted in<\/p>\n
the vice of failure\/miscarriage of justice.  Merely because an error has<\/p>\n
been committed, it is not incumbent on this court to invoke the powers<\/p>\n
of superintendence and correction.    In any view of the matter,  if one<\/p>\n
reads between the lines, it is clear that the petitioner has no plea to urge<\/p>\n
in substance and the petitioner is only playing for time to drag on the<\/p>\n
proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       14.     I   am,     in   these   circumstances,   satisfied   that   this   R.P.F.C.<\/p>\n
does not deserve admission and only deserves to be dismissed.  I do so.<\/p>\n
                                                          (R. BASANT)<\/p>\n
                                                               Judge<\/p>\n
tm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sulaiman vs Rabiya on 26 February, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RP(Family Court) No. 61 of 2008() 1. SULAIMAN, S\/O.MUHAMMED, MANU, … Petitioner Vs 1. RABIYA, D\/O.SAIDALAVI, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.M.ASOKAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice R.BASANT Dated :26\/02\/2008 O R D E […]<\/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-22002","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSulaiman vs Rabiya on 26 February, 2008 - 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\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sulaiman vs Rabiya on 26 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-01T06:11:13+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sulaiman vs Rabiya on 26 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-01T06:11:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1359,\"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\\\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Sulaiman vs Rabiya on 26 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-01T06:11:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sulaiman vs Rabiya on 26 February, 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":"Sulaiman vs Rabiya on 26 February, 2008 - 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\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sulaiman vs Rabiya on 26 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-01T06:11:13+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sulaiman vs Rabiya on 26 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-01T06:11:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008"},"wordCount":1359,"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\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008","name":"Sulaiman vs Rabiya on 26 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-01T06:11:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulaiman-vs-rabiya-on-26-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sulaiman vs Rabiya on 26 February, 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\/22002","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=22002"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22002\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22002"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22002"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22002"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}