{"id":22632,"date":"2008-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008"},"modified":"2017-07-06T16:00:16","modified_gmt":"2017-07-06T10:30:16","slug":"barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Barot vs Barot on 26 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Barot vs Barot on 26 August, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.R. Shah,&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\nSCA\/2642\/2008\t 10\/ 10\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\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 2642 of 2008\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\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\nBAROT\nMUKESHKUMAR MANHARLAL - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nBAROT\nKIRANBEN D\/O CHHAGANLAL JIVABHAI &amp; 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n===================================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMR JV JAPEE for Petitioner(s) :\n1, \nMR. HARDIK BRAHMBHATT for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n4. \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\tMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 26\/08\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tRule.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri Hardik Bhrahmbhatt, learned advocate waives service of rule on<br \/>\nbehalf of the respondent. With the consent of the parties, the matter<br \/>\nis taken up for final hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tBy<br \/>\nway of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,<br \/>\nthe petitioner-husband has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction<br \/>\nand \/ or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated<br \/>\n11.5.2007 passed by the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge,<br \/>\nHimatnagar passed below Exh. 10 in H.M.P. No. 5 of 2006 under Section<br \/>\n24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, by which the learned trial Court has<br \/>\ndirected the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,000\/- each to the respondent<br \/>\nNos. 1, 3 and 4 by way of interim alimony from the date of the<br \/>\napplication.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tPetitioner<br \/>\nand the respondent No.1 are the husband and wife. There was a dispute<br \/>\nbetween the husband and wife since many years and the respondent No.<br \/>\n1 is residing at her parental house since many years with her three<br \/>\ndaughters. Respondent No.1 wife had also filed Maintenance<br \/>\nApplication under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and<br \/>\nas per the order passed by the learned Magistrate petitioner is<br \/>\npaying Rs. 1100\/- towards maintenance of the respondents. That the<br \/>\npetitioner had instituted H.M.P. No. 66 of 1991 before the learned<br \/>\nCivil Judge (S.D.) at Himatnagar for restitution of conjugal rights.<br \/>\nAs per the petitioner, since the respondent wife assured to come and<br \/>\nstay with the petitioner, the said application was withdrawn by the<br \/>\npetitioner. However, thereafter also the respondent No.1 wife had not<br \/>\ncome and stay with the petitioner as the petitioner suffering from<br \/>\nParkinson disease. That, thereafter the respondent No. 1 wife had<br \/>\ninstituted  H.M.P. NO. 4 of 2000 in the Court of learned Civil Judge,<br \/>\nPatan for restitution of conjugal rights and an application for<br \/>\ninterim alimony under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was also<br \/>\npreferred. The said application was dismissed by the learned Civil<br \/>\nJudge, Patan by the order dated16.4.2002. That, thereafter the<br \/>\npetitioner had preferred Divorce Petition under Section 9 of the<br \/>\nHindu Marriage Act being H.M.P. No. 5 of 2006 and in the said divorce<br \/>\npetition the respondent No.1 had filed an application  for interim<br \/>\nalimony under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The said<br \/>\napplication was resisted by the petitioner by submitting that the<br \/>\nrespondent No.1 wife is earning and was serving in the school. It was<br \/>\nalso submitted that she is also getting maintenance from the<br \/>\npetitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That<br \/>\nearlier the application for interim alimony was dismissed by the<br \/>\nlearned Civil Judge, Patan and there are no change circumstances.<br \/>\nThat, the petitioner is suffering from Parkinson disease and,<br \/>\ntherefore, it was requested to dismiss the said application. That the<br \/>\nlearned 5th Additional Civil Judge, Patan by impugned order dated<br \/>\n11.5.2007   partly allowed the said application directing the<br \/>\npetitioner to pay Rs. 1,000\/- per month to the respondent No.1 wife,<br \/>\nso also Rs. 1,000\/- each to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from the date<br \/>\nof filing of the said application. Being aggrieved with the impugned<br \/>\norder passed by the learned trial Court granting interim alimony to<br \/>\nthe respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage<br \/>\nAct, the petitioner-husband has preferred the present Special Civil<br \/>\nApplication under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tShri<br \/>\nJ.V. Japee, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently<br \/>\nsubmitted that the impugned order dated 11.5.2007 passed by the<br \/>\nlearned trail Court directing the petitioner to pay interim alimony<br \/>\nat Rs. 1,000\/- per month each to the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 is<br \/>\nabsolutely illegal and arbitrary, which is required to be quashed and<br \/>\nset aside. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have<br \/>\nappreciated that the petitioner is already paying interim maintenance<br \/>\nto the respondents, as awarded by the learned Magistrate under<br \/>\nSection 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also further<br \/>\nsubmitted that the learned trail Court ought to have directed that<br \/>\nearlier a similar application for interim alimony has been dismissed<br \/>\nby the learned Civil Judge, Patan in H.M.P. No. 4 of 2000,<br \/>\nconsidering the income of the petitioner by holding that the<br \/>\napplicant had no agricultural land and there are no change<br \/>\ncircumstances thereafter and therefore, the learned trial Court has<br \/>\ncommitted an error in awarding the interim alimony at the aforesaid<br \/>\nrate. It is submitted that the petitioner is suffering from Parkinson<br \/>\ndisease and had no independent income, therefore, it is requested to<br \/>\nallow the present Special Civil Application by quashing and setting<br \/>\naside impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tPetition<br \/>\nis opposed by Shri Hardik Bhrahmbhatt, learned advocate appearing for<br \/>\nthe respondent wife  by submitting that at the relevant time when the<br \/>\ninterim alimony application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge,<br \/>\nPatan in H.M.P. No. 4 of 2000, the agricultural land was not in the<br \/>\nname of the petitioner but was in the name of his mother, however,<br \/>\nsubsequently the said agricultural land is now in the name of the<br \/>\npetitioner and he has become absolute owner and these are the change<br \/>\ncircumstances which are required to be considered. It is submitted<br \/>\nthat respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are studying at Nadiad and Ahmedabad and<br \/>\nlooking to the cost for education and another expenses to be born by<br \/>\nthe respondent it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has<br \/>\ncommitted any error in awarding Rs. 3,000\/- as interim alimony,<br \/>\nlooking to the price rise, cost of education and maintenance etc.<br \/>\nTherefore, it is requested to dismiss the present Special Civil<br \/>\nApplication.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tHeard<br \/>\nthe learned advocate for the respective parties. It is not in dispute<br \/>\nthat petitioner and the respondent No.1 are the husband and wife and<br \/>\nrespondent Nos. 3 and 4 are their children. It is also not in dispute<br \/>\nthat respondent No.1 is residing at her parental house since long<br \/>\nwith her children. It is also not in dispute that respondent Nos. 3<br \/>\nand 4 are at present studying at Nadiad and Ahmedabad. A judicial<br \/>\nnotice can be taken about the cost of education and maintenance etc<br \/>\nand minimum Rs. 3,000\/- is required for the education and maintenance<br \/>\nof each child. That the respondents are being paid maintenance under<br \/>\nSection 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at Rs. 1150\/-. It is<br \/>\nthe contentions on behalf of the petitioner  that earlier the<br \/>\napplication was submitted by the respondent No. 1 for interim alimony<br \/>\ncame to be rejected by the learned Civil Judge in H.M.P. No. 4 of<br \/>\n2000 by holding that the petitioner had no agricultural land, no<br \/>\nindependent income and that the respondent No.1 is serving in the<br \/>\nSchool and, therefore, the second application is not maintainable.<br \/>\nHowever, considering the order passed by the learned Civil Judge,<br \/>\nPatan in H.M.P.No. 4 of 2000, the said application for interim<br \/>\nalimony was dismissed by the learned trial Court at the relevant time<br \/>\nby observing that agricultural land is not in the name of the<br \/>\npetitioner but their ancestral land in the name of his mother.<br \/>\nSubsequently, the petitioner has become absolute owner of the<br \/>\nagricultural land and the same is in the name of the petitioner now.<br \/>\nThese are the change circumstances. Even, price rise, increase in<br \/>\ncost  of education, maintenance etc. are also be the change<br \/>\ncircumstances. However, while awarding the interim alimony the amount<br \/>\nof maintenance paid under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure is required to be adjusted. In the facts and circumstances<br \/>\nof the case and cost of education and maintenance at present and the<br \/>\nprice rise, the order passed by the learned trial Court awarding<br \/>\ninterim alimony to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 at the rate of Rs.<br \/>\n1,000\/- per month is not required to be interfered by this Court.<br \/>\nHowever, considering the fact that the respondent No.1 is awarded the<br \/>\nmaintenance at the rate of Rs. 1150\/- under Section 125 of the Code<br \/>\nof Criminal Procedure, the same is required to be adjusted while<br \/>\nawarding interim alimony in favour of the respondent No.1. In the<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances of the case, respondent No.1 will be entitled<br \/>\nin all Rs. 1500\/- towards interim alimony from the date of<br \/>\napplication and taking Rs. 1150\/- which is being awarded to the<br \/>\nrespondent No.1 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal, she will<br \/>\nbe entitled to further Rs. 350\/- per month as a interim alimony in<br \/>\nthe present proceedings. Thus, in all respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4<br \/>\nwould be entitled to Rs. 2350\/- in the present proceedings by way of<br \/>\ninterim alimony from the date of application and to that extent the<br \/>\nimpugned order passed by the learned trial Court requires to be<br \/>\nmodified.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tFor<br \/>\nthe reasons stated above, the petition succeeds in part. The impugned<br \/>\norder passed by the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge,<br \/>\nHimatnagar passed below Exh. 10 in H.M.P. No. 5 of 2006 is modified<br \/>\nto the extent that the petitioner is directed to  pay Rs. 350\/- per<br \/>\nmonth to the respondent No.1, over and above the amount awarded under<br \/>\nSection 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to pay Rs. 1,000\/-<br \/>\nper month each to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from the date of<br \/>\napplication i.e. 15.6.2006.Thus, in all respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4<br \/>\nwould be entitled to Rs. 2350\/- per month by way of interim alimony<br \/>\nfrom the date of application. The arrears as per the present order to<br \/>\nbe paid by the petitioner within a period of three months from today.<br \/>\nThe petitioner to pay interim alimony regularly to the respondent<br \/>\nNos. 1, 3 and 4 every month as and when due and payable between the<br \/>\ndate of  1 to 7 of each month. Rule is made absolute. In the facts<br \/>\nand circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                            (M.R.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shah, J.)<\/p>\n<p>kaushik<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Barot vs Barot on 26 August, 2008 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/2642\/2008 10\/ 10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2642 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ===================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may [&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-22632","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>Barot vs Barot on 26 August, 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\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Barot vs Barot on 26 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-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=\"2008-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-06T10:30:16+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\\\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Barot vs Barot on 26 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-06T10:30:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1617,\"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\\\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Barot vs Barot on 26 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-06T10:30:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Barot vs Barot on 26 August, 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":"Barot vs Barot on 26 August, 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\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Barot vs Barot on 26 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-06T10:30:16+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\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Barot vs Barot on 26 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-06T10:30:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008"},"wordCount":1617,"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\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008","name":"Barot vs Barot on 26 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-06T10:30:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/barot-vs-barot-on-26-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Barot vs Barot on 26 August, 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\/22632","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=22632"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22632\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22632"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22632"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}