{"id":241934,"date":"2008-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008"},"modified":"2018-10-28T20:40:08","modified_gmt":"2018-10-28T15:10:08","slug":"rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"Rayinkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 3 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Rayinkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 3 March, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 19870 of 2006(M)\n\n\n1. RAYINKUTTY, S\/O. KOOTHUMADATHIL\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. KADEEJA, D\/O. AREEKADAN KUNHEN,\n\n3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,\n\n4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SMT.K.V.RESHMI\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.SAMSUDIN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :03\/03\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                           R. BASANT, J.\n\n            ````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n                W.P.(C) No. 19870 OF 2006 M\n            ````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n             Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
            Sufferance of the default sentence under section 3<\/p>\n
(4) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce)<\/p>\n
Act – will that wipe off the liability for payment of amounts due<\/p>\n
under section 3 of that Act? This is the crucial question for<\/p>\n
consideration in this case. Petitioner had suffered an order<\/p>\n
under section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on<\/p>\n
Divorce) Act(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).              He was<\/p>\n
directed to pay a total amount of Rs.2,25,000\/- under various<\/p>\n
heads. The petitioner did not pay that amount. The learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate proceeded to take steps under section 3(4) of the<\/p>\n
Act to recover the amount.            The proceedings against the<\/p>\n
petitioner was registered by the learned Magistrate as a<\/p>\n
calendar case and a judgment was pronounced in the said<\/p>\n
calendar case sentencing the petitioner under section 3(4) of<\/p>\n
WPC.19870\/06
\n                              : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
the said Act to undergo imprisonment for one year or until the<\/p>\n
payment of the amount of Rs.2,15,000\/- was made.             The<\/p>\n
petitioner underwent the sentence of rigorous imprisonment<\/p>\n
for one year, it is submitted. But, after the petitioner returned<\/p>\n
from the prison, the Magistrate was informed that the<\/p>\n
petitioner was having in his possession properties belonging<\/p>\n
to him and accordingly the learned Magistrate             is now<\/p>\n
proceeding with steps to recover the amount due under<\/p>\n
section 3 of the Act from the petitioner by resort to recovery<\/p>\n
proceedings under section 421 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   The petitioner has come to this Court with a<\/p>\n
grievance that the petitioner having already undergone the<\/p>\n
maximum sentence prescribed under section 3(4) of the Act is<\/p>\n
not liable now to pay the amount and the steps taken are all<\/p>\n
without jurisdiction.  The petitioner prays that appropriate<\/p>\n
orders may be passed to restrain the Magistrate and the<\/p>\n
recovery authorities from proceeding further with the steps for<\/p>\n
recovery under section 3(4) of the Act read with 421 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
WPC.19870\/06
\n                                : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
     3.    The question whether a person who has already<\/p>\n
undergone the sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of<\/p>\n
amounts due is liable to face further proceedings for recovery<\/p>\n
has been considered by the Supreme Court in the decision in<\/p>\n
Kuldip Kaur Vs. Surinder Singh [AIR 1989 SC 232]. Two<\/p>\n
Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has observed thus in<\/p>\n
paragraph 6 of the said judgment :\n<\/p>\n
        ” A distinction has to be drawn between a<\/p>\n
        mode of enforcing recovery on the one hand<\/p>\n
        and effecting actual recovery of the amount<\/p>\n
        of monthly allowance which has fallen in<\/p>\n
        arrears on the other. Sentencing a person to<\/p>\n
        jail is a ‘mode of enforcement’. It is not a<\/p>\n
        ‘mode of satisfaction’ of the liability.     The<\/p>\n
        liability can be satisfied only by making actual<\/p>\n
        payment of the arrears. The whole purpose<\/p>\n
        of sending to jail is to oblige a person liable to<\/p>\n
        pay the monthly allowance who refuses to<\/p>\n
WPC.19870\/06
\n                             : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
        comply with the order without sufficient<\/p>\n
        cause, to obey the order and to make the<\/p>\n
        payment. The purpose of sending him to jail<\/p>\n
        is not to wipe out the liability which he has<\/p>\n
        refused to discharge. Be it also realised that<\/p>\n
        a person ordered to pay monthly allowance<\/p>\n
        can be sent to jail only if he fails to pay<\/p>\n
        monthly allowance ‘without sufficient cause’<\/p>\n
        to comply with the order. It would indeed be<\/p>\n
        strange to hold that a person who ‘without<\/p>\n
        reasonable cause’ refuses to comply with the<\/p>\n
        order of the Court to maintain his neglected<\/p>\n
        wife or child would be absolved of his liability<\/p>\n
        merely because he prefers to go to jail. A<\/p>\n
        sentence of jail is no substitute for the<\/p>\n
        recovery of the amount of monthly allowance<\/p>\n
        which has fallen in arrears.          Monthly<\/p>\n
        allowance is paid in order to enable the wife<\/p>\n
WPC.19870\/06
\n                               : 5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
        and child to live by providing with the<\/p>\n
        essential economic wherewithal. Neither the<\/p>\n
        neglected wife nor the neglected child can<\/p>\n
        live without funds for purchasing food and the<\/p>\n
        essential articles to enable them to live.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Instead of providing them with the funds, no<\/p>\n
        useful purpose would be served by sending<\/p>\n
        the husband to jail. Sentencing to jail is the<\/p>\n
        means for achieving the end of enforcing the<\/p>\n
        order by recovering the amount of arrears. It<\/p>\n
        is not a mode of discharging liability.     The<\/p>\n
        section does not say so. The Parliament in<\/p>\n
        its wisdom has not said so. Common sense<\/p>\n
        does not support such a construction. From<\/p>\n
        where does the Court draw inspiration for<\/p>\n
        persuading itself that the     liability arising<\/p>\n
        under the order for maintenance would stand<\/p>\n
        discharged upon an effort being made to<\/p>\n
WPC.19870\/06
\n                                 : 6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
          recover it? The order for monthly allowance<\/p>\n
          can be discharged only upon the monthly<\/p>\n
          allowance being recovered.         The liability<\/p>\n
          cannot be taken to have been discharged by<\/p>\n
          sending the person liable to pay the monthly<\/p>\n
          allowance, to jail. At the cost of repetition it<\/p>\n
          may be stated that it is only a mode or<\/p>\n
          method of recovery and not a substitute for<\/p>\n
          recovery. No other view is possible.”\n<\/p>\n
                                      (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
       4.    In the light of the very clear pronouncement of the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court that the undergoing of the default sentence of<\/p>\n
imprisonment imposed under section 125(3) cannot efface the<\/p>\n
liability and such suffering of sentence cannot be reckoned as<\/p>\n
equal to the discharge of the liability, the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
grievance cannot also obviously be entertained.             The<\/p>\n
petitioner is now shown to be having in his possession<\/p>\n
properties belonging to him. If within a period of six years<\/p>\n
WPC.19870\/06
\n                               : 7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
from the date on which the amount became due the petitioner<\/p>\n
has not paid the amount, under section 70 of the IPC the<\/p>\n
amount can be recovered under section 421 Cr.P.C. The fact<\/p>\n
that the petitioner has undergone the sentence can only mean<\/p>\n
that he cannot again be proceeded under section 3(4) of the<\/p>\n
Act and sentenced to imprisonment. But, in any view of the<\/p>\n
matter, if the amount can be recovered by resort to the<\/p>\n
procedure for recovery of the amount under section 421<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. the decision in Kuldip Kaur(supra) is authority for the<\/p>\n
proposition that such recovery can be effected. The decision<\/p>\n
in Saji Kumar Vs. Soman Pillai [2006 (3) KLT 679] does also<\/p>\n
support this contention. The petitioner cannot claim absolution<\/p>\n
from liability to pay and discharge the amount merely because<\/p>\n
he has undergone the sentence imposed on him under<\/p>\n
section 3(4) of the Act. Of course in the light of the decision<\/p>\n
in Nityanandan Vs. Radhamani [1980 KLT 537] such<\/p>\n
instances shall be rare as effort to recover must have been<\/p>\n
exhausted before the order imposing the default sentence is<\/p>\n
WPC.19870\/06
\n                              : 8 :<\/span><\/p>\n
passed. But in a rare case where such recovery is found to<\/p>\n
be possible, even after the default sentence is undergone<\/p>\n
(either because of omission\/suppression at earlier stages or<\/p>\n
by subsequent acquisition) the courts must pursue the efforts<\/p>\n
for recovery.\n<\/p>\n
      5.   The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that<\/p>\n
a distinction must be drawn between the amounts payable<\/p>\n
under section 125 Cr.P.C. and the amounts that are liable to<\/p>\n
be paid under section 3 of the Act.    The argument of the<\/p>\n
learned counsel is that whereas section 125 Cr.P.C. speaks<\/p>\n
of payment of maintenance every month, section 3 of the Act<\/p>\n
contemplates one time payment of the entire amount.<\/p>\n
      6.   That distinction cannot in any view of the matter,<\/p>\n
help the petitioner to claim absolution from liability.     A<\/p>\n
direction for one time payment must be enforced with greater<\/p>\n
insistence and strictness. Any attempt to avoid payment of<\/p>\n
such liability must be frowned upon as the effect, so far as<\/p>\n
beneficiary of the order is concerned, will be graver and of<\/p>\n
WPC.19870\/06
\n                                 : 9 :<\/span><\/p>\n
greater consequence. In this view of the matter, I am unable<\/p>\n
to agree that the dictum in paragraph 6 of Kuldip Kaur(supra)<\/p>\n
must be restricted in its application to monthly payments<\/p>\n
under section 125 Cr.P.C. and not to one time payment under<\/p>\n
section 3 of the Act. Such a distinction does appear to be<\/p>\n
totally artificial and not in tune with the purpose that section 3<\/p>\n
and section 3(4) have to achieve.           The observations in<\/p>\n
paragraph 6 extracted above, according to me, do apply with<\/p>\n
equal, if not greater, rigor to the claim for recovery under<\/p>\n
section 3(4) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      7.     A contention is raised that the learned Magistrate<\/p>\n
had unnecessarily resorted to the procedure of registering a<\/p>\n
calendar case in proceedings under section 3(4). To my mind<\/p>\n
that objection appears to be without any merit as the said<\/p>\n
order passed in C.C.5\/04 dated 16.11.04 has now become<\/p>\n
final without challenge and the petitioner has already<\/p>\n
undergone the sentence imposed voluntarily. Attempt to pick<\/p>\n
holes in the said order is found to be without any merit. Such<\/p>\n
WPC.19870\/06
\n                               : 10 :<\/span><\/p>\n
attempt is unnecessary also now.           I am not, hence,<\/p>\n
proceeding to consider the said contention in any greater<\/p>\n
detail.\n<\/p>\n
      8.    It follows from the above discussions that the<\/p>\n
attempt to recover the amounts due under the order in<\/p>\n
MC.17\/99 even after the petitioner has undergone the<\/p>\n
sentence imposed under section 3(4) is absolutely justified<\/p>\n
and the same does not deserve any interference. This writ<\/p>\n
petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                           (R.BASANT, JUDGE)
\naks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Rayinkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 3 March, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 19870 of 2006(M) 1. RAYINKUTTY, S\/O. KOOTHUMADATHIL … Petitioner Vs 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE … Respondent 2. KADEEJA, D\/O. AREEKADAN KUNHEN, 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, 4. THE DISTRICT […]<\/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-241934","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRayinkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 3 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rayinkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 3 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-28T15:10:08+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rayinkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 3 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-28T15:10:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1493,\"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\\\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008\",\"name\":\"Rayinkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 3 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-28T15:10:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rayinkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 3 March, 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":"Rayinkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 3 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rayinkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 3 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-28T15:10:08+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rayinkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 3 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-28T15:10:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008"},"wordCount":1493,"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\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008","name":"Rayinkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 3 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-28T15:10:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rayinkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-3-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rayinkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 3 March, 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\/241934","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=241934"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241934\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=241934"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=241934"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=241934"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}