{"id":230146,"date":"2010-06-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010"},"modified":"2015-01-08T09:00:07","modified_gmt":"2015-01-08T03:30:07","slug":"k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"K.K.Hassan Rawther vs S.Abdul Azeez (Dr.) on 8 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.K.Hassan Rawther vs S.Abdul Azeez (Dr.) on 8 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMat.Appeal.No. 1011 of 2009()\n\n\n1. K.K.HASSAN RAWTHER,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. S.FATHIMA BEEVI,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. S.ABDUL AZEEZ (DR.),\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI. S.A. RAZZAK\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\nThe Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI\n\n Dated :08\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                           R. BASANT &\n                      M.C. HARI RANI, JJ.\n            -------------------------------------------------\n               Mat. Appeal No.1011 of 2009-D\n            -------------------------------------------------\n            Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010\n\n                            JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Basant,J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     The maternal grandparents of a minor by name `Naureen<\/p>\n
Abdul Azeez` are the appellants in this Mat. Appeal. They are<\/p>\n
aged 64 years and 61 years respectively. The minor child is aged<\/p>\n
11 years (date of birth : 14\/4\/1999). The respondent herein is<\/p>\n
the father of the minor child. The mother of the minor child<\/p>\n
Anjana Hassan got married to the respondent herein on<\/p>\n
14\/5\/1998. Even though there was unilateral pronouncement of<\/p>\n
talaq by the respondent on 27\/10\/2002, the marital tie appears<\/p>\n
to have continued – evidently by resumption of co-habitation.<\/p>\n
The marital tie was put an end to under Ext.B1 agreement of<\/p>\n
divorce entered into between the spouses on 09\/04\/2006. In the<\/p>\n
said agreement, the following stipulations regarding custody of<\/p>\n
the child appear in paragraphs 4 and 5.\n<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.1011 of 2009     -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
                 “4.   The parties will continue to have all<\/p>\n
            rights and obligations in law relating to their<\/p>\n
            daughter Naureen A.Azeez and it is made clear<\/p>\n
            that this agreement of divorce will not in any<\/p>\n
            way prejudicially affect the interests of the<\/p>\n
            minor child who is now aged 7 years and is in<\/p>\n
            the custody of her maternal grandmother at<\/p>\n
            Adoor in Kerala.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 5.    Subject to what is agreed herein<\/p>\n
            above the 1st party shall have the right to see the<\/p>\n
            female child at any time and can have her<\/p>\n
            custody during the holidays and that the minor<\/p>\n
            child shall not be taken out of Kerala by either<\/p>\n
            party without specific consent of the other<\/p>\n
            party.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.     As per the stipulations in Ext.B1, the child continued<\/p>\n
to be in the custody of the grandparents at Adoor.             The<\/p>\n
respondent, that is the father of the child, had taken up<\/p>\n
employment abroad and he resides at Saudi Arabia. He has re-<\/p>\n
married and has two children born in such latter wedlock.<\/p>\n
     3.     The mother of the child Anjana Hassan went to U.S in<\/p>\n
search of employment.       She, after divorce, has contracted a<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.1011 of 2009     -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
second marriage with her present husband Mohammed Rafi by<\/p>\n
name. That marriage took place on 03\/11\/2006 (notwithstanding<\/p>\n
the innocuous typist’s devil in the petition which showed the date<\/p>\n
of marriage as 11\/03\/2006 – it is submitted that following the<\/p>\n
practice in the U.S, the date and month of re-marriage appear in<\/p>\n
the reverse order). The child continued to be educated here in<\/p>\n
Kerala living with her grandparents. It is submitted that the<\/p>\n
mother of the child Anjana Hassan has become pregnant in the<\/p>\n
second marriage and has now given birth to a male child.<\/p>\n
      4.    It is at this juncture that the grandparents went<\/p>\n
before the Family Court with an application to appoint the<\/p>\n
mother of the child and her step father as joint guardians to<\/p>\n
enable them to take the child to U.S to continue her education.<\/p>\n
To enable the mother and the step father to take the child to U.S,<\/p>\n
they had applied for U.S visa and they were directed by the<\/p>\n
officials to get an order of court showing the mother to be the<\/p>\n
legal guardian entitled to custody and the step father to be the<\/p>\n
joint guardian. It is accordingly that O.P.(G&W) No.359\/09 was<\/p>\n
filed before the Family Court, Thiruvalla.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    The petitioners\/grandparents submitted that they<\/p>\n
were becoming old. They are not able to effectively manage the<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.1011 of 2009      -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
affairs of the minor child. The child was growing. The child is<\/p>\n
likely to attain puberty shortly. The child requires the care and<\/p>\n
custody of its mother at this juncture and in any view of the<\/p>\n
matter, the mother was in the best position to act as the<\/p>\n
guardian and keep custody of the child. To satisfy the demand of<\/p>\n
the visa officials, the step father was shown as the proposed joint<\/p>\n
guardian. He expressed his consent to so act by filing Ext.A16<\/p>\n
joint declaration along with his wife.\n<\/p>\n
      6.    Service could not expeditiously be effected on the<\/p>\n
respondent and this obliged the petitioners\/appellants to come<\/p>\n
before this court with W.P.C.No.20687\/2009 for directions<\/p>\n
regarding service. Necessary interim directions were issued as<\/p>\n
per order dated 23\/7\/2009 and the matter was finally disposed of<\/p>\n
by judgment dated 20\/8\/2009.            Later, the respondent came<\/p>\n
before this court with a review petition.           By order dated<\/p>\n
02\/11\/2009, the said review petition was also disposed of.<\/p>\n
Copies of these orders\/judgment are produced as Annexures 1,3<\/p>\n
and 5 along with this appeal.      The appellants submitted that in<\/p>\n
the interests of the educational requirements of the child<\/p>\n
emergent orders were necessary.            Considering the need for<\/p>\n
emergent and expeditious disposal, time bound directions were<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.1011 of 2009      -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
issued by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     7.     The efforts to effect service appear to have borne fruit<\/p>\n
and a learned counsel appeared before the court below on behalf<\/p>\n
of the respondent on 22\/09\/2009.          In compliance with those<\/p>\n
directions, the Family Court finally proceeded to pass the<\/p>\n
impugned order on 11\/11\/2009.            The petition filed by the<\/p>\n
grandparents was dismissed by the impugned order. Aggrieved<\/p>\n
by that order, the grandparents have preferred this appeal.<\/p>\n
     8.     After the passing of the impugned order, O.P.(G & W)<\/p>\n
No.35\/2010 was filed by the respondent herein before the Family<\/p>\n
Court, Thiruvalla claiming custody of the child for himself. By<\/p>\n
order dated 23\/3\/2010 in I.A.No.437\/2010, this Court (another<\/p>\n
Bench) had stayed the further proceedings in the said O.P.<\/p>\n
     9.     Before    us,    the      learned  counsel    for    the\n\nappellants\/grandparents      and      the  respondent\/father   have\n\nadvanced their arguments.           The learned counsel for the\n\n<\/pre>\n
appellants submits that the Family Court did not realistically<\/p>\n
take into consideration the interest of the minor child. It is a girl<\/p>\n
child. The girl has not attained puberty yet. She has completed<\/p>\n
the age of 11 years, she having been born on 14\/4\/1999. At this<\/p>\n
stage of life of the minor child, the minor child badly needs the<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.1011 of 2009   -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
company and presence of her mother.            The court below<\/p>\n
proceeded to dismiss the application without taking note of the<\/p>\n
plight of the appellants\/grandparents, the situation in life of the<\/p>\n
minor child as also the inability of the appellants, persons of<\/p>\n
advanced age to effectively manage and look after the minor<\/p>\n
child.\n<\/p>\n
     10.    The learned counsel for the respondent, on the<\/p>\n
contrary, submits that the conclusion of the court below and the<\/p>\n
impugned order rejecting the application is absolutely justified.<\/p>\n
According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the<\/p>\n
respondent did not get effective opportunity to advance his case<\/p>\n
before the      Family Court.        He was denied reasonable<\/p>\n
opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his case. This has<\/p>\n
resulted in great prejudice and hardships to the respondent. The<\/p>\n
respondent, in these circumstances, has filed O.P.(G&W)<\/p>\n
No.35\/10. The learned counsel for the respondent prays that the<\/p>\n
impugned order may be set aside and the court below may be<\/p>\n
directed to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
The learned counsel further prays that after remand, the court<\/p>\n
below may be directed to dispose of the O.P. along with O.P.<\/p>\n
(G&W) No.35\/10 giving all the contestants adequate opportunity<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.1011 of 2009    -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
to plead and establish their respective case.<\/p>\n
      11. We have considered the detailed submissions made by<\/p>\n
both counsel. We do not think it necessary to express our final<\/p>\n
opinion on the contentions raised.         We are satisfied that<\/p>\n
directions must be issued to the court below to dispose of the<\/p>\n
matter afresh after setting aside the impugned order.      We find<\/p>\n
merit in the contention that the respondent has not been given<\/p>\n
effective opportunity to substantiate all his contentions.<\/p>\n
Interests of justice, we are satisfied, shall be served ideally by<\/p>\n
issuing appropriate directions for fresh disposal of the O.P. along<\/p>\n
with O.P.(G&W) No.35\/10.\n<\/p>\n
      12. We take note of the submissions of the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the appellants that though the mother of the child was sought<\/p>\n
to be arrayed as an additional petitioner by filing I.A.No.3056\/09,<\/p>\n
the said application was dismissed by the court below.      We are<\/p>\n
not satisfied with the reasons shown for the rejection of the said<\/p>\n
prayer for impleadment of the mother of the child as 3rd<\/p>\n
petitioner are sufficient or justified. We are satisfied that the<\/p>\n
said petition deserves to be allowed.     The mother of the child<\/p>\n
must be permitted to get impleaded. Accordingly, we set aside<\/p>\n
the order in I.A.No.3056\/09 and direct the court below to<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.1011 of 2009       -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
implead the mother of the child Anjana Hassan as the additional<\/p>\n
3rd petitioner and give her opportunity to raise all her<\/p>\n
contentions and adduce evidence.          It is admitted that in O.P.<\/p>\n
(G&W) No.35\/10 filed by the respondent, the mother of the child<\/p>\n
has been arrayed as respondent and in these circumstances, we<\/p>\n
are satisfied that it is only fair and reasonable, in the interests of<\/p>\n
proper and effective resolution of the dispute and disposal of the<\/p>\n
petitions, that the mother must be permitted to come on record<\/p>\n
as the additional 3rd petitioner in the O.P.\n<\/p>\n
      13. One question remains to be considered. What<\/p>\n
arrangements are to prevail till the O.Ps. are disposed of afresh<\/p>\n
by the court below?       We had requested the counsel to advance<\/p>\n
arguments on this aspect.              The learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants submits that there is immediate necessity to pass<\/p>\n
interim orders regarding the guardianship and custody of the<\/p>\n
minor child. Its grandparents, who have been keeping the child<\/p>\n
in their custody as acknowledged under Ext.B1, have expressed<\/p>\n
their inability to effectively manage and look after the child now.<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the appellants submits that even prior to<\/p>\n
Ext.B1 the child was in their custody. Be that as it may, that<\/p>\n
dispute does not appear to be too relevant for the present<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.1011 of 2009     -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
context.    The child, as we have already noted, has passed the<\/p>\n
age of 11 years and the on set of puberty is expected.         The<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellants argues and we agree that, at<\/p>\n
this juncture, in the life of the minor child she needs the care,<\/p>\n
custody and patronage of her mother the most.           When the<\/p>\n
mother is available and there is no disqualification for the<\/p>\n
mother, we are unable to locate a person more competent to<\/p>\n
keep the custody of the child than the mother of the child.<\/p>\n
      14. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that<\/p>\n
the mother had never taken care of the child; that she had left<\/p>\n
the child with the maternal grandparents of the child; she has<\/p>\n
only been visitor to the child on occasions and that she has<\/p>\n
admittedly got re-married to a stranger. Counsel argues that if<\/p>\n
the mother is appointed as the interim guardian entitled to keep<\/p>\n
the custody of the child and take the child to the U.S., the child<\/p>\n
will virtually have to remain under the protection of the stranger<\/p>\n
step-father.   It is further contended that in that event the right<\/p>\n
of the natural guardian – the respondent father, to effectively<\/p>\n
supervise the development of the child will also be frustrated.<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the respondent further argues that the<\/p>\n
child will be exposed to totally alien culture and that would be<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.1011 of 2009     -: 10 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
disadvantageous to the development of the child.        The learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondent goes one step further and argues that<\/p>\n
there is no legal marriage between the mother of the child and<\/p>\n
Mohamed Rafi with whom she resides.           We have incidentally<\/p>\n
referred to this contention as we note that even in the counter<\/p>\n
statement such re-marriage of the mother of the child is<\/p>\n
practically conceded. We find no merit in that contention at this<\/p>\n
stage, considering the state of the pleadings.<\/p>\n
     15. The court below, unfortunately we note, had relied<\/p>\n
upon the circumstance that the minor child’s wishes were not<\/p>\n
ascertained. It was for the court to ascertain the wishes of the<\/p>\n
minor child.    A court which had not wanted to ascertain the<\/p>\n
wishes of the child is not justified in using it as a ground against<\/p>\n
either party to deny the claim of custody.       Taking note of the<\/p>\n
said observations in the impugned order, we wanted the child to<\/p>\n
be produced before us.     We have interacted with the child and<\/p>\n
we are convinced and satisfied that the child wants to be with its<\/p>\n
mother.     That informed choice of the minor aged above 11<\/p>\n
years shall also weigh with us while considering what<\/p>\n
arrangements should be made till the O.Ps. are          disposed of<\/p>\n
afresh.\n<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.1011 of 2009      -: 11 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
      16. The learned counsel for the respondent offers to keep<\/p>\n
the child in his custody and do the needful as the guardian in<\/p>\n
custody.    According to him, he was always willing to take the<\/p>\n
child in his custody and the grandparents with whom the child<\/p>\n
continues under Ext.B1 had never informed him of any inability<\/p>\n
on their part to effectively manage the child. He raises a further<\/p>\n
grievance that he was not given opportunity to interact<\/p>\n
sufficiently with the child on earlier occasions.           He has<\/p>\n
admittedly raised no such grievance before any one prior to the<\/p>\n
filing of the petition.\n<\/p>\n
      17. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that<\/p>\n
immediate arrangements are to be made regarding the custody<\/p>\n
of the child as the schools are to re-open shortly in the U.S. and<\/p>\n
any further delay is likely to interrupt the educational curriculum<\/p>\n
of the child.  Till the child is taken by its mother to the U.S., the<\/p>\n
appellants agree to look after and keep the custody of the child.<\/p>\n
It is submitted that the maternal grandmother of the child also<\/p>\n
proposes to go with the child to the U.S. and is expected to be<\/p>\n
with the child and its mother for a long time.\n<\/p>\n
      18. Having rendered our very anxious consideration to all<\/p>\n
the relevant facts and circumstances, we are certainly of the<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.1011 of 2009      -: 12 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
opinion that the interests of the welfare of the child will be best<\/p>\n
served by entrusting the interim custody of the child to the<\/p>\n
mother of the child Anjana Hassan subject to appropriate terms<\/p>\n
and conditions. The fact that she has remarried is, according to<\/p>\n
us, by itself not a sufficient ground to reject her claim for interim<\/p>\n
custody.     That the father is the natural guardian is also not<\/p>\n
reckoned by us as a sufficient reason to entrust the child to the<\/p>\n
custody of the father. He admittedly is employed abroad.          He<\/p>\n
admittedly has re-married and he has two children in such later<\/p>\n
wedlock.      We have taken note of the wishes and informed<\/p>\n
preferences of the child also.      We have looked at the question<\/p>\n
from the point of view of the educational requirements of the<\/p>\n
child.  Above all, we take note of the fact that the child, who is<\/p>\n
likely to attain puberty within a short period of time, deserves to<\/p>\n
be in the custody of her mother notwithstanding the fact that the<\/p>\n
mother has contracted re-marriage after divorce and has a child<\/p>\n
in such wedlock. The status and position of the mother as a<\/p>\n
qualified Doctor employed abroad is not disputed also.<\/p>\n
      19. In the result:\n<\/p>\n
      (a)   This appeal is allowed in part.\n<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.1011 of 2009     -: 13 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
     (b)    The impugned order is set aside.\n\n     (c)     The court below is directed to dispose of O.P(G&W)\n\n            No.359\/09 afresh.\n\n     (d)    The court below is directed to dispose of O.P.(G&W)\n\n<\/pre>\n
            No.359\/09 by holding a joint trial along with O.P.<\/p>\n
            (G&W) No.35\/10.\n<\/p>\n
     (e)    I.A.No.3056\/09 is allowed and Anjana Hassan – the<\/p>\n
            mother of the minor child, is directed to be impleaded<\/p>\n
            as the additional 3rd        petitioner in O.P.(G&W)<\/p>\n
            No.359\/09.\n<\/p>\n
     (f)    The   court   below     shall  dispose  of  O.P.(G&W)<\/p>\n
            No.359\/09 and O.P.(G&W)No.35\/10 afresh after<\/p>\n
            giving the parties full opportunity to amend their<\/p>\n
            pleadings, file the requisite statements and adduce all<\/p>\n
            further evidence.\n<\/p>\n
     (g)    As the father and the mother of the child are abroad,<\/p>\n
            the court below shall post the case in such manner as<\/p>\n
            to give reasonable opportunity to both the father and<\/p>\n
            the mother of the child to come to India and adduce<\/p>\n
            appropriate evidence. Reasonable time shall be given<\/p>\n
            to both sides to the extent possible. The convenience<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.1011 of 2009     -: 14 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
            of the parents of the child shall be ascertained and<\/p>\n
            they shall be given effective opportunity to appear<\/p>\n
            and give evidence. As effective interim arrangements<\/p>\n
            are made, time bound directions for disposal are not<\/p>\n
            being issued. We have taken note of the grievance of<\/p>\n
            the respondent that such time bound direction,<\/p>\n
            notwithstanding the clarification in the order dated<\/p>\n
            2\/11\/09 in the Review Petition, has resulted in<\/p>\n
            miscarriage of justice.\n<\/p>\n
     (h)    The court below shall dispose of the matter afresh<\/p>\n
            untrammelled by any observations\/findings in the<\/p>\n
            impugned order or the expressions of opinion made<\/p>\n
            by us in order to ascertain the person most suitable to<\/p>\n
            keep the interim custody of the child. In short, the<\/p>\n
            matter must be disposed of afresh as a totally fresh<\/p>\n
            matter by the court below.\n<\/p>\n
     (i)    Until the O.Ps. are disposed of afresh, we direct that<\/p>\n
            the mother of the child – Anjana Hassan shall function<\/p>\n
            as the interim guardian entitled to the custody of the<\/p>\n
            child.  She will be entitled to take the child to her<\/p>\n
            place of residence in the U.S.    She shall undertake<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.1011 of 2009     -: 15 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
            to produce the child before the Family Court during<\/p>\n
            all annual vacations.      During such annual vacations<\/p>\n
            when the child is in India, the respondent\/father shall<\/p>\n
            be permitted to have interactions with the child.<\/p>\n
            Appropriate directions from time to time can be given<\/p>\n
            by the Family Court regarding the custody\/visitorial<\/p>\n
            rights of the child during such vacations.\n<\/p>\n
     (j)    Before taking the child out of India, the mother of the<\/p>\n
            child Anjana Hassan shall execute a bond for<\/p>\n
            Rs.3 lakhs (Rupees Three lakhs only) with two solvent<\/p>\n
            sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the<\/p>\n
            Family Court undertaking to abide by the directions<\/p>\n
            to be issued by the Courts from time to time<\/p>\n
            regarding the custody of the child.\n<\/p>\n
     (k)    Needless to say, such directions shall be issued only<\/p>\n
            consistent with the educational requirements of the<\/p>\n
            child and taking into account the availability of the<\/p>\n
            respondent in India during the relevant time.        The<\/p>\n
            mother of the child shall inform the respondent\/his<\/p>\n
            counsel about the vacation during which the child can<\/p>\n
            be brought to India. The respondent shall inform the<\/p>\n
Mat. Appeal No.1011 of 2009    -: 16 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
            mother of the child through counsel about the time<\/p>\n
            that the respondent shall be available in India.<\/p>\n
            Appropriate directions can be sought from the Family<\/p>\n
            Court about the date on which the child is to be<\/p>\n
            brought to India and the manner in which the<\/p>\n
            expenses for the same has to be met by the parties.<\/p>\n
     (l)    Original passport of the child is admitted to be in the<\/p>\n
            custody of the father.     He shall surrender the same<\/p>\n
            before the Family Court immediately – at any rate,<\/p>\n
            within a period of 15 days to enable the Family Court<\/p>\n
            to hand it over to the interim guardian so that<\/p>\n
            arrangements can be made to take the child to the<\/p>\n
            U.S. as already directed.      It shall be open to the<\/p>\n
            parties to apply for and get return of the original<\/p>\n
            passport   produced       before  the   Family   Court<\/p>\n
            immediately.                           Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                                R. BASANT
\n                                                  (Judge)
\n                                                   Sd\/-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n                                              M.C. HARI RANI\n                                                    (Judge)\n\nNan         \/\/true copy\/\/         P.S. to Judge\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.K.Hassan Rawther vs S.Abdul Azeez (Dr.) on 8 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Mat.Appeal.No. 1011 of 2009() 1. K.K.HASSAN RAWTHER, … Petitioner 2. S.FATHIMA BEEVI, Vs 1. S.ABDUL AZEEZ (DR.), … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI. S.A. RAZZAK For Respondent :SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM The Hon’ble MR. Justice R.BASANT The Hon’ble […]<\/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-230146","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.K.Hassan Rawther vs S.Abdul Azeez (Dr.) on 8 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.K.Hassan Rawther vs S.Abdul Azeez (Dr.) on 8 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-06-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-08T03:30:07+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.K.Hassan Rawther vs S.Abdul Azeez (Dr.) on 8 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-08T03:30:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3220,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010\",\"name\":\"K.K.Hassan Rawther vs S.Abdul Azeez (Dr.) on 8 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-08T03:30:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.K.Hassan Rawther vs S.Abdul Azeez (Dr.) on 8 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.K.Hassan Rawther vs S.Abdul Azeez (Dr.) on 8 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.K.Hassan Rawther vs S.Abdul Azeez (Dr.) on 8 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-08T03:30:07+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.K.Hassan Rawther vs S.Abdul Azeez (Dr.) on 8 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-08T03:30:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010"},"wordCount":3220,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010","name":"K.K.Hassan Rawther vs S.Abdul Azeez (Dr.) on 8 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-08T03:30:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-hassan-rawther-vs-s-abdul-azeez-dr-on-8-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.K.Hassan Rawther vs S.Abdul Azeez (Dr.) on 8 June, 2010"}]},{"@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\/230146","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=230146"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230146\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230146"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230146"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230146"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}