{"id":227945,"date":"2008-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008"},"modified":"2015-08-26T20:16:26","modified_gmt":"2015-08-26T14:46:26","slug":"divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Divya vs State on 23 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Divya vs State on 23 September, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Jayant Patel,&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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/96\/3608\t 8\/ 8\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. 9636 of 2008\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\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\nDIVYA\nVASANT DESAI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nBANK OF INDIA - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nKH KAJI for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR SUDHIR M MEHTA\nfor Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR SH ALMAULA for Respondent(s) :\n1, \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\tMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 23\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\tRule.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t Mr. Almaula, learned counsel for the respondent waives notice of<br \/>\n\tRule.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWith<br \/>\n\tthe consent of learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the<br \/>\n\tmatter is finally heard.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\n\tshort facts of the case appears to be that late Shri Vasant J.Desai<br \/>\n\thad opened a PPF A\/c on 05.03.1989 with the respondent Bank and at<br \/>\n\tthe relevant point of time, Mrs. Kiranben, who was the wife of late<br \/>\n\tShri Vasant J.Desai was shown as the nominee.  On 30.06.1989,  on<br \/>\n\taccount of the death of Mrs. Kiranben, her name was deleted as the<br \/>\n\tnominee. It further appears that simultaneously, on 30.06.1989, the<br \/>\n\tname of three persons were included as the nominee, viz. Vanilaben<br \/>\n\tJayantilal Desai, Anjana Chandrakant Majmudar &amp; Roshni<br \/>\n\tMohanprasad Majmudar.  It appears that thereafter, late Shri Vasant<br \/>\n\tJ. Desai, on 13.09.1991, got married with Mrs.Divyaben and on the<br \/>\n\tsame day, her nomination is shown as entered in the passbook of PPF<br \/>\n\taccount.  Shri Vasant J.Desai expired on 22.04.2008.  The petitioner<br \/>\n\twhose name appeared as the nominee in the PPF account, applied to<br \/>\n\tthe respondent Bank for release of the amount to her as the nominee.<br \/>\n\tHowever, the respondent Bank declined the same. It is under these<br \/>\n\tcircumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by<br \/>\n\tpreferring the present petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\n\tdeserves to be recorded that this Court on 08.09.2008, after hearing<br \/>\n\tboth the sides, had passed the following order:\n<\/p>\n<p>?S1.\tPursuant<br \/>\nto the order passed by this Court, Mr. Vijay Bichewar, Chief Manager,<br \/>\nis present.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tHeard<br \/>\nMr. Kaji appearing with Mr. Mehta learned Counsel for the petitioner,<br \/>\nand Mr. Almaula learned Counsel for the respondent bank.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tPrima<br \/>\nfacie, it appears that as per the petitioner, she is wife of the<br \/>\ndeceased, and also the first degree legal heirs, and there is no<br \/>\nother legal heirs then petitioner of deceased Vasant J Desai. It also<br \/>\nprima facie appears that there is already entry in the passbook of<br \/>\nPPF account for nomination of the petitioner on 13.9.1991, however,<br \/>\nthe contention of the respondent bank is that no record exist for<br \/>\nsuch nomination in the bank, and therefore the respondent bank is not<br \/>\nconfirming the said nomination. The aforesaid is coupled with the<br \/>\ncircumstance that as per the respondent bank, even in respect of<br \/>\nearlier nomination of three<br \/>\npersons, which has been subsequently cancelled, the record<br \/>\ndoes not exist with the bank. If such is tested on the ground of<br \/>\ngenuineness of the defence, it further appears<br \/>\nthat earlier nomination has been made in the passbook by the officer<br \/>\nof the bank by putting initial and the same can be treated as<br \/>\nfinal, unless any cogent material is brought to the notice of this<br \/>\nCourt, that the person had no authority in respect<br \/>\nof other three persons, whose nomination was accepted and cancelled.<br \/>\nThere are already entries for such purpose, but merely because<br \/>\nthe bank is not having record, would not invalidate<br \/>\nthe nomination, if already in existence.  Applying the same<br \/>\nprinciples to the nomination made in favour of the petitioner, as<br \/>\nsuch would prevail, even if the bank may not be in a position<br \/>\nto trace the record.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Almaula learned<br \/>\nCounsel for the respondent bank further submitted that as per the<br \/>\nscheme of the PPF, form No. G is required to be submitted, by the<br \/>\nperson, seeking withdrawal of the amount, and details with the form<br \/>\nNo. G, inter alia includes succession certificate\/letter of<br \/>\nadministration, which has not been submitted by the petitioner and<br \/>\ntherefore, bank could not release the amount, since the balance is<br \/>\nexceeding Rs. 1 lac.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThe<br \/>\nexamination of the said contention shows that form No. G is common<br \/>\nfor the nominees, as well for the legal heirs. If the nominees are<br \/>\nto be held good for entitlement of the withdrawal of the<br \/>\namount, there would not be any requirement to produce the succession<br \/>\ncertificate\/letter of administration. It is only in cases where the<br \/>\nperson is claiming withdrawal as legal heirs, who is not nominee, the<br \/>\nrequirement may be for production of the succession<br \/>\ncertificate\/letter of administration. When the decease during life<br \/>\ntime has nominated the particular person for entitlement of the<br \/>\namount for operating account<br \/>\nor withdrawal thereof,<br \/>\nsuch is to prevail in case, when the withdrawal is to take place,<br \/>\nbased on such nominations.\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, Clause III requiring<br \/>\nproduction of such succession certificate\/letter of<br \/>\nadministration, may not apply to the case of the petitioner, since<br \/>\nthe withdrawal is applied as nominee, and not as the legal heir,<br \/>\nthough the petitioner who is nominee is also legal heir.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tIt<br \/>\nappears that with a view to allay any apprehension on the part of the<br \/>\nbank on the ground of the genuineness of the nomination, if public<br \/>\nadvertisement is given in any Gujarati Newspaper having wide<br \/>\ncirculation in the area of Ahmedabad by the petitioner, same would be<br \/>\nsufficient.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tConsidering<br \/>\nthe facts and circumstances of the present case, in the event there<br \/>\nis no objection raised in response thereto, petitioner could be said<br \/>\nas entitle for withdrawal of the amount. However, if any objection is<br \/>\nraised, Court may pass appropriate orders examining genuineness of<br \/>\nsuch objection or otherwise.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIn<br \/>\nany case the bank has to release the money and therefore, it would be<br \/>\njust and proper to direct the bank to deposit the amount with this<br \/>\nCourt, which would enable this Court to pass effective final orders,<br \/>\nin the event, petitioner succeeds in establishing the claim.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tHence,<br \/>\nby interim direction it is ordered that the respondent bank shall<br \/>\ndeposit the amount with this Court with the accrued interest lying in<br \/>\nthe account, within a period of one week. The petitioner shall get<br \/>\nadvertisement published in the newspaper either in Gujarat<br \/>\nSamachar\/Divya Bhaskar\/Sandesh declaring that the petitioner has<br \/>\nclaimed amount lying in the PPF account as the nominee of deceased<br \/>\nVasant J Desai, and any person having objections, may submit<br \/>\nobjections in the proceedings of this petition on the next date or<br \/>\nwithin ten days from the publication.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tS.O.\n<\/p>\n<p>to 22.9.2008, for passing further orders and reporting<br \/>\ncompliance. To be listed on first board.??\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.Kazi,<br \/>\n\tlearned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that pursuant<br \/>\n\tto the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the affidavit has been<br \/>\n\tfiled by the petitioner on 15.09.2008 stating that the public<br \/>\n\tadvertisement was given in ?SSandesh?? daily newspaper, copy<br \/>\n\twhereof is also produced with the said affidavit. The aforesaid<br \/>\n\tadvertisement shows that the petitioner has claimed the right as the<br \/>\n\tnominee in the PPF account of late Mr.Vasant J. Desai and, if any<br \/>\n\tperson has any objection to the claim of the said amount, he may<br \/>\n\tfile the objection in the present proceedings before this Court<br \/>\n\twithin 10 days from the publication of the notice.  There is neither<br \/>\n\tany objection received from any person nor as per the statement made<br \/>\n\tby the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner or the<br \/>\n\trespondent Bank has received any objection from any person.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\n\tview of the above, it can be concluded that no one has any objection<br \/>\n\tin the right claimed by the petitioner as nominee in the PPF account<br \/>\n\tof late Shri Vasant J.Desai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAs<br \/>\n\tsuch, in the above referred order dated 08.09.2008, the objection<br \/>\n\traised on behalf of the Bank was considered to the effect that no<br \/>\n\tsuccession certificate was produced by the petitioner for<br \/>\n\tdisbursement of the amount.  It was observed by the Court that the<br \/>\n\tquestion of production of succession certificate can arise in the<br \/>\n\tcase of a person who is claiming right as successor, but is other<br \/>\n\tthan the nominee in the Bank account.  As in case of the petitioner,<br \/>\n\ther name was already included as nominee, the question of production<br \/>\n\tof succession certificate would not be required.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\n\taforesaid is coupled with the circumstance that as per Section 45ZA<br \/>\n\tof the Banking Regulation Act, the right would flow in favour of the<br \/>\n\tnominee on the death of the depositor and the nominee is entitled to<br \/>\n\tget all the rights of the depositor, as the case may be, in relation<br \/>\n\tto such deposit to the exclusion of all other persons, unless the<br \/>\n\tnomination is varied or cancelled in the prescribed manner.  It is<br \/>\n\ttrue that the PPF is a special scheme of Government of India, but as<br \/>\n\tobserved earlier, the requirement for production of succession<br \/>\n\tcertificate would not be attracted in case of nominee and the<br \/>\n\tprovisions of the Banking Regulation Act can be taken as the guiding<br \/>\n\teffect for examining the rights of the nominee to receive the amount<br \/>\n\tin the Bank account under the PPF Scheme.  If such is considered, it<br \/>\n\tcan be said that the nominee will be entitled to the amount.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAdditional<br \/>\n\tcircumstance as referred to hereinabove in the present case is that<br \/>\n\tin the public advertisement in the newspaper having circulation in<br \/>\n\tGujarat has been given, but none has objected to the status of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner as nominee of late Shri Vasant J. Desai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\n\tview of the aforesaid, the petitioner in the capacity as the nominee<br \/>\n\tin the PPF account of late Shri Vasant J. Desai would be entitled to<br \/>\n\treceive the amount and so will be the obligation on the part of the<br \/>\n\trespondent Bank to pay the amount to petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tTherefore,<br \/>\n\tit is hereby directed that the Bank will be required to pay the<br \/>\n\tamount lying as credit balance in the PPF Account No.10295620670 of<br \/>\n\tlate Shri Vasant J. Desai.  As pursuant to the interim order passed<br \/>\n\tby this Court, the respondent Bank has already deposited the total<br \/>\n\tsum lying in the PPF Account of Rs.20,30,916.49 ps with this Court,<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner in view of the earlier direction will be entitled to<br \/>\n\twithdraw the same from this Court by A\/c. Payee cheque.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\n\tpetition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.  Rule made absolute<br \/>\n\taccordingly. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>  (JAYANT PATEL, J.)<\/p>\n<p>*bjoy<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Divya vs State on 23 September, 2008 Author: Jayant Patel,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/96\/3608 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9636 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ========================================================= 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-227945","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>Divya vs State on 23 September, 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\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Divya vs State on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-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=\"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-26T14:46:26+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\\\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Divya vs State on 23 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-26T14:46:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1653,\"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\\\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Divya vs State on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-26T14:46:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Divya vs State on 23 September, 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":"Divya vs State on 23 September, 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\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Divya vs State on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-26T14:46:26+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\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Divya vs State on 23 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-26T14:46:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008"},"wordCount":1653,"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\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008","name":"Divya vs State on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-26T14:46:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divya-vs-state-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Divya vs State on 23 September, 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\/227945","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=227945"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227945\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227945"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227945"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227945"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}