{"id":23983,"date":"2000-09-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-09-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000"},"modified":"2015-07-06T10:28:34","modified_gmt":"2015-07-06T04:58:34","slug":"neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000","title":{"rendered":"Neena Abraham vs Raji Eappen on 12 September, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Neena Abraham vs Raji Eappen on 12 September, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: C Buch<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: C Buch<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>C.K. Buch, J.<\/p>\n<p>1. This is a Christian Marriage Petition filed bythe petitioner wife under<br \/>\nsec. 18 &amp; 19 of the IndianDivorce Act for declaring the marriage between<br \/>\nthepetitioner and the respondent held on 13.11.1995 atVadodara as null and<br \/>\nvoid.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The petitioner-wife Neena Abraham has filed thispetition for the aforesaid<br \/>\nrelief on the ground that herconsent for marriage was obtained under a fraud<br \/>\nandmisrepresentation by the respondent husband Raji Eappenby concealing<br \/>\nimportant social, educational and religiousaspect. Before going to the merits of<br \/>\nthe petition, Iwould like to mention that the averments made in thepetition are<br \/>\nnot substantially challenged or controvertedby the respondent husband by leading<br \/>\noral as well asdocumentary evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. On 30.8.2000, when this matter was called out,after hearing learned<br \/>\nadvocates appearing for theparties, their suggestions on the issues and<br \/>\nconsideringthe rival contentions in the pleadings, this Court (Coram :<br \/>\nP.B.Majmudar, J ), vide order dated 30.8.2000,framed following issues :-\n<\/p>\n<p>(A) Whether the respondent was lunatic at thetime of marriageand whether<br \/>\nhecontinued tobe so at the time of filingof this petition ?\n<\/p>\n<p> (B) Whether consent of the petitioner wasobtained by fraud,<br \/>\nmisrepresentation andnon-disclosure of material fact at thetime of her marriage<br \/>\nwith the respondent?\n<\/p>\n<p> (C) What order ?\n<\/p>\n<p>4. It is contended by the petitioner that theparties<br \/>\nare Christians by birth and belonging to Marthomacommunity. Their marriage was solemnised on 13.11.1995at Makarpura Church, Vadodara in accordance with thereligious rites of Christians. Marriage was arranged asboth the spouses were introduced and met through amatrimonial advertisement published in &#8220;Times of India&#8221;,Ahmedabad Edition. It was stated in the advertisementthat the respondent husband is residing at Jabalpur(M.P.), the petitioner wife responded to theadvertisement and accepted the stated facts as to thestatus, educational qualifications etc.of therespondent husband disclosed before her.However, after marriage, petitioner wife realised that the respondent husband had concealed following important facts fromher:-\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) That the parents of the<br \/>\nrespondenthusband and other family members are notpractising Marthoma, but they belong toanother denomination known as&#8221;Pentecostals&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p> (ii) Educational qualification was alsosuppressed. The petitioner is<br \/>\nPostGraduate in the faculty of Commerce andrespondent husband was only a<br \/>\nB.Com.\n<\/p>\n<p> (iii) That the petitioner was told that therespondent husband was working<br \/>\nas StationManager in Jabalpur, but in fact, he wasworking as Assistant Station<br \/>\nMaster in aremote village in Jabalpur District.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Parties have agreed to lead evidence byaffidavits. The facts averred in<br \/>\nthe petition are statedon oath in the affidavit filed by the petitioner<br \/>\ntodaywhich is taken on record. Surprisingly, the respondenthusband has not<br \/>\ncross-examined the deponent &#8211; petitioner,nor has filed any counter affidavit.<br \/>\nLearned counsel Mr.Thakor appearing for the respondent husband has filed apursis<br \/>\nstating that the respondent husband does not wantto cross-examine the<br \/>\npetitioner. Respondent husband hasnot even cared to ask the petitioner to enter<br \/>\ninto thewitness box for cross-examination. Thus, as stated,there is no contrary<br \/>\nevidence on record qua the avermentsmade in the petition as well as affidavit<br \/>\nfiled by thepetitioner. Hence, the averments made have<br \/>\nremaineduncontroverted.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wifehas fairly submitted that<br \/>\nrest of the allegations made bythe petitioner are not substantiated by any<br \/>\ncogent oralas well as documentary evidence and, therefore, he is notpressing the<br \/>\ndecree on the grounds reflected in issueno.(A) framed by this Court. He,<br \/>\nhowever, submitted thatthis petition can be decreed as prayed for on the<br \/>\ngroundsreflected in issue no.(B). In view of this fairsubmission, issue no.(A)<br \/>\nis answered in the negative forwant of evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. As stated earlier, no oral as well as documentaryevidence is adduced by<br \/>\nthe respondent husband tocontrovert the averments made by the petitioner.<br \/>\nTheaverments made have remained uncontroverted. Thus, theaverments made by the<br \/>\npetitioner wife regarding fraud,misrepresentation and non-disclosure of true<br \/>\nfacts areestablished by the petitioner wife more particularly whenthe respondent<br \/>\nhusband has not cared to controvert thesame by filing counter affidavit or<br \/>\nleading anyevidence.It is submitted and proved that ordinarily, noMarthoma would<br \/>\nmarry a person belonging to a familypractising Pentecostal. Family members of<br \/>\nthe respondenthusband including his brothers are practisingPentecostal. Thus, it<br \/>\nis established that the consent ofthe petitioner wife for marriage was obtained<br \/>\nundermisrepresentation and non-disclosure of true facts.Since, both the families<br \/>\nwere unknown to each other andcame in to contact for the first time through<br \/>\nmatrimonialadvertisement published in Times of India, respondenthusband must<br \/>\nhave easily defrauded the petitioner wife.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. In response to the query raised by this Court,learned counsel appearing<br \/>\nfor the petitioner has citedone decision in the case of Saly Joseph v\/s Baby<br \/>\nThomas,reported in AIR 1999 Kerala P.66 wherein it is held thatthe decree of<br \/>\nannulment of marriage can be granted onproving by the wife that she was very<br \/>\nparticular aboutquality of person which was concealed from her andhusband<br \/>\nobtained her consent for marriage by exercisingfraud by concealing educational<br \/>\nqualifications. In thecase before Kerala High Court, the petitioner wife<br \/>\nhadgiven evidence to the effect that if she was made tobelieve that the opponent<br \/>\nhusband has passed Pre-degreeexamination and two years Diploma Course in<br \/>\nAirConditioning and is employed as Air Condition Mechanic inthe Government<br \/>\nService in Beharin. But in fact thehusband was not having diploma in Air<br \/>\nConditioning and hehad not even passed Pre-degree examination and hisservice at<br \/>\nBeharin was of a salesman. Had she knew aboutthis, she would not have given her<br \/>\nconsent for marriage.In my view, ratio of this judgment squarely applies tothe<br \/>\nfacts of the present case. But for the fraud andrepresentation as to the family<br \/>\nbackground, educationalqualifications and job by the respondent husband,<br \/>\nthepetitioner would not have consented for marriage and,therefore, she is<br \/>\nentitled to the decree for annulment ofmarriage on the ground of fraud and<br \/>\nmisrepresentation.Normally, a post-graduate lady in commerce facultystaying in a<br \/>\ncity like Baroda, would not like to marry aperson having less educational<br \/>\nqualifications and servingin a remote village in Madhya Pradesh. I am told<br \/>\nthatpetitioner wife now is having degree of M.B.A. A ladywho intends to study<br \/>\nfurther would not opt to go and stayat a remote place where there is no<br \/>\nfacilities toprosecute her further studies of M.B.A. which requiresregular<br \/>\nattendance in an Institution. It appears thather consent for marriage must have<br \/>\nbeen obtained in agiven hope that in the city like Jabalpur she would beable to<br \/>\nprosecute her further studies. There issufficient legal evidence to show that as<br \/>\nshe was made tobelieve that respondent husband is staying\/residing atJabalpur<br \/>\nand serving as a Station Manager in Railways.Under the circumstances, this is a<br \/>\nfit case where decreeas prayed for by the petitioner should be granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. It is pertinent to note further that noeconomical or financial aspects are<br \/>\ninvolved in thematter today as the relief qua the same has already beendeleted<br \/>\non the previous date of hearing as not pressed.I am also satisfied that this is<br \/>\nnot a case of collusionbetween the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. In view of facts and circumstances as statedabove, I answer Issue<br \/>\nNo.(A) in the negative and IssueNo.(B) in the affirmative.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. ThisCourt, hereby declares<br \/>\nthat the marriage betweenpetitioner wife Neena Abraham, R\/o Vadodara AND<br \/>\nRajiEappen, R\/o Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) solemnised on13.11.1995 at Vadodara<br \/>\nwas null and void on the groundthat the consent of the petitioner wife for<br \/>\nmarriage wasnot free consent and was obtained under fraud andmisrepresentation.<br \/>\nThe decree of annulment of marriageis, therefore, granted and same should be<br \/>\ndrawnaccordingly. Considering the facts and circumstances ofthe case, no order<br \/>\nas to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Neena Abraham vs Raji Eappen on 12 September, 2000 Author: C Buch Bench: C Buch JUDGMENT C.K. Buch, J. 1. This is a Christian Marriage Petition filed bythe petitioner wife under sec. 18 &amp; 19 of the IndianDivorce Act for declaring the marriage between thepetitioner and the respondent held on 13.11.1995 atVadodara [&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-23983","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Neena Abraham vs Raji Eappen on 12 September, 2000 - 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\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Neena Abraham vs Raji Eappen on 12 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-06T04:58:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Neena Abraham vs Raji Eappen on 12 September, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-06T04:58:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1250,\"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\\\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000\",\"name\":\"Neena Abraham vs Raji Eappen on 12 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-06T04:58:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Neena Abraham vs Raji Eappen on 12 September, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Neena Abraham vs Raji Eappen on 12 September, 2000 - 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\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Neena Abraham vs Raji Eappen on 12 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-06T04:58:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Neena Abraham vs Raji Eappen on 12 September, 2000","datePublished":"2000-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-06T04:58:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000"},"wordCount":1250,"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\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000","name":"Neena Abraham vs Raji Eappen on 12 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-06T04:58:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neena-abraham-vs-raji-eappen-on-12-september-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Neena Abraham vs Raji Eappen on 12 September, 2000"}]},{"@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\/23983","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=23983"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23983\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23983"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23983"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23983"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}