{"id":253724,"date":"2010-10-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-08-03T07:02:10","modified_gmt":"2017-08-03T01:32:10","slug":"sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sri Ravinanda Gopal vs Smt R Revathi @ Gayathri on 25 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Ravinanda Gopal vs Smt R Revathi @ Gayathri on 25 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.L.Manjunath And B.Manohar<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.'\n\nDATED THIS THE 25\u00a2: DAY OF OCTOBER,_;2~0l,_'Q:   \n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HONBLE MRJUSTICE  L. 3  'J \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUS*I*I.\u00a7fE  \n\nMFA.NO.446_1 QF\"2'dVQ8VVV(MC)\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nSri.Ravinanda G0w;:a\u00a7;,.;:.'* ._ 2;  \nS\/o\ufb02asharath:_Nai\u00e9d 33 'years,\n ._  Rama\u00e9iuemdra Raddy Building,\n'  Pritchand Road,\n\nM\n\n\n\nRobertson Pet,\nK.G.F \u00ab~ 563 113  RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
(By Sri.S.Balan 8: Assts, Advocate)<\/p>\n
MFA \ufb01led U\/s. 28 of the Hindu Marriage <\/p>\n
the Judgment and Award dated: 04.03.2008 ” .g_
\nM.C.NO.55\/2000 on the \ufb01le Of Civil Judge  <\/p>\n
rejecting the petition \ufb01led U \/ s.12 of~’Hin-du Marriage Act for
\ndivorce.\n<\/p>\n
This MFA having been hetard andrelservedandgg <\/p>\n
on for pronouncement of Judgerneiirt this’–.da’yf,
\nJ., delivered the following:  — ”\n<\/p>\n
JUDSMEN\u00aeM_
\nAppellant is the peti\ufb01onerg  Civil Judge<\/p>\n
[Sr.Dn.], 1″  the judgment and
\ndecree  M.C.i\\lo.56\/ 2000 passed<\/p>\n
by the C_\u00a7S:Vi1″\u00a2’Judg\u20ac” KGF, \ufb01led this appeal.<\/p>\n
    filed a petition under Section 12 of<\/p>\n
 Hindt1l”lV\u00a3ar1’iagejfXet seeking for annulment of marriage<\/p>\n
l\u00b0\u00bb.__o11VV the of impotency of respondent or in the<\/p>\n
\/5%<\/p>\n
3<\/span>
\nalternative grant a decree of divorce dissolving the<\/p>\n
marriage solemnized on 23-6- 1999.\n<\/p>\n
3. The brief facts of the case are as fo11ows:’_.\u00a7:”” 99<\/p>\n
The petitioner and respondent, are  ”<\/p>\n
husband and wife. Their marriage  <\/p>\n
23-6-1999 as per the Hindu   KGFQTT<\/p>\n
The respondent lived in Vthe maritai;’ho’:1se. “Tire petitioner
\nwas working at Bangalore. the house<\/p>\n
early in the  and  the night. The<\/p>\n
petitioner’ ‘during the stay of the<\/p>\n
respondentlinltihe the petitioner and his<\/p>\n
family niernbers  that she has no respect for the<\/p>\n
eiders’~pai’ticiilarly to the mother of the petitioner. Many<\/p>\n
 tirnelshshelias’I=.niisbehaved with other family members.<\/p>\n
 ‘theW;AVudi month she had been to her parental<\/p>\n
 14-7-1998. On 6-8-1999, she informed the<\/p>\n
5*<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner that she is pregnant. However on 30-8-1998,<\/p>\n
she informed the petitioner that she had undergone<\/p>\n
abortion. in Vi\u20acW of that the respondent was  <\/p>\n
the medical test on 2-9-1999. fifhe  <\/p>\n
examined her reported that the all<\/p>\n
pregnant and the respondent’  hhaveiheuinenstrual” 9<\/p>\n
cycle at all. She has taken \u00a7r.K’asturi on
\n28- 10-1999 for a few days  lL}Ti\u00ab:F,’9,V.’1:1A–;.1:E3:1_f_’If_iiII10I’1iE11 house
\non 3-11-1999.  the petitioner,<\/p>\n
the respondent.VV.wi;is’A:brought’]bac’k  the marital house on<\/p>\n
19- 1- 1 999:. _     ‘ the marital house once<\/p>\n
again on any reasonable cause and<\/p>\n
:.deserte;i””the: petitioner? ‘<\/p>\n
 _  in his petition alleges that the<\/p>\n
:19″\u00bb….vparentsrof t.he’3..V_r.espondent suppressed the fact that the<\/p>\n
– -.fj’j;respondentV__Ais an impotent and unable to beget a child, it<\/p>\n
i”\n<\/p>\n
\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
is impossible to lead a marital life with the respondent.<\/p>\n
He issued a legal notice to the respondent oallingotipon<\/p>\n
her to join him. After four months, she has   <\/p>\n
the said notice agreeing to joi1’1__.t.he4  ,4_’_i.”VI’h_e’ <\/p>\n
petitioner has alleged that the  <\/p>\n
cover up her latches had   “under”\n<\/p>\n
Section 498-\u00bbA of IPC<\/a> and seetiongefatgandt4 or Dowry
\nProhibition Act<\/a> before theV_jtj,risdieti.–o.rial_~police and that
\nthe matter is   :peoneitieiiat:.oTn. Since the<\/p>\n
respondent is an:..i;tnpotent:,’t_’ she  not in a position to<\/p>\n
maintain the ‘rnarital’V”li.:fe\u00bb the petitioner filed a petition<\/p>\n
seeking for anr1ul’H1,erj1_t or marriage.<\/p>\n
  “to\u00bbt–he notice issued by the Civil Judge<\/p>\n
(VS~r=..Dn’.’};Vtlive:_’resp0–ndent entered appearance and filed her<\/p>\n
.\u00bbao,.\/.._,.vobjectio’ns. _  denied the averments made in the<\/p>\n
‘i-\u00abl’.j’j;petit.ion. ”  However, admitted the marriage and<\/p>\n
\u00a3~”\n<\/p>\n
\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
relationship. She has stated that after the marriage, she<\/p>\n
stayed in the marital house from 23–6~l9V9’9;’:””._Vti1l<\/p>\n
l4\u00ab~7–1999 and in view of Audi month, <\/p>\n
parental House. Due to their marital _life;”*:the’re’_\u00a5Wa:s <\/p>\n
symptoms of pregnancy out of  <\/p>\n
undergone a test in St.JohnsVCv1inicalhiaboratolrgr\u00e9lvand the” V<\/p>\n
report was positive. ‘\u00a7he”i’eafter”,”‘she  taker: ‘treatment
\nin Government Materr1ityH_H7osp.ital.  informed by
\nthe Doctors that?__’Vsii;e.ha.s:~.got abortions. The<\/p>\n
symptoms of  Vinfolrjnlied to the petitioner<\/p>\n
earlier and._the_ spon’tarIeo’u_s”abortions was also informed<\/p>\n
to the Vpetitioner svubsequently. On 23–8~1999, the<\/p>\n
fespondenst-rejoinedVdlthepetitioner and she was subjected<\/p>\n
to’V”r~.v’}7?hen the pregnancy report was negative<\/p>\n
 “because ofspontaneous abortions. Dr.Kasturi, who had<\/p>\n
 “the respondent to the medical test reported<\/p>\n
 thatdduedd to the abortion, the respondent is suffering from<\/p>\n
AV,<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
anemic and advised for nutritious food and suggested
\ntreatment to the respondent. The petitioner in order to
\navoid medical expenditure and other expenditure towards<\/p>\n
nutritious food, sent her to the parental <\/p>\n
parents took her to the Sharn’s Clinic and_.t1ft=’\u00a7”ci.tVi’Iitfefi”it  <\/p>\n
been given. Further, respondent in…[her-,9sta’tem’ent..,.oi”<\/p>\n
objections alleges that the Fpetitiozner  <\/p>\n
Rs.2.00 lakhs to do the l)_usinespsI’:-Sinee, ttlieifath\ufb01er of the
\nrespondent expressed    pay the said<\/p>\n
amount, the petitioner   respondent<\/p>\n
for dowry.V7_ To  she had filed a<\/p>\n
petition u_nderw. of IPC<\/a>. The respondent<\/p>\n
:.oorit.ended a.tha’t.sheHhas’ not deserted the petitioner on the<\/p>\n
otherV’ii.and.’;petitioner has deserted her and sent her<\/p>\n
Iltback her ‘parental house on 23-1-2000. She is hale<\/p>\n
 Aheualthy\ufb01; she is fit physically, mentally and also<\/p>\n
 Iiledielaliy; she is not an impotent and she is ready to<\/p>\n
\/9\/<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
undergo any medical test with any Doctor as per the
\nchoice of the petitioner and sought for dismissaV1’e’ofi.the<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
6. On the basis of the pleadingsfoii
\nJudge (Sr.Dn.), KGF, has framed the”fo1ioWingi-  V\n<\/p>\n
(i) Whether the petitiovfier’ hasV”‘p1’fox}ed.’:’:\u00a7the
\nmarriage of   resoorident
\nis null and void’ asthCe:.ii’r\u00e9fsfJQndent is<\/p>\n
impotent’? _<\/p>\n
(ii)   is entitled for a
\ndecree *  as claimed by the<\/p>\n
_ peti”tiorier’?_<\/p>\n
 (i’iii).”C’ Wh:a1;order?”‘V<\/p>\n
  :petit’io_rIer in order to prove his contention<\/p>\n
  as P.W.1 and got the documents<\/p>\n
”  \u00a7’,x.P.1 to Ex.P.5. The respondent examined<\/p>\n
\/Sw<\/p>\n
herself as R.W.1 and got marked the documerxts as<\/p>\n
Ex.R.l and Ex.R.2.\n<\/p>\n
8. The Civil Judge [Sr.Dn.) after’00’consideririgx”\u00abt_he5era1 0<\/p>\n
and documentary evidence let in bytthe-joartilesheldll <\/p>\n
Nos.1 and 2 in negative   its
\njudgment and decree dated  l\ufb02pleased to<\/p>\n
dismiss the divorceA.petition.:._  0<\/p>\n
9. Being aggrie:x”;ed”  and decree dated
\n4-3-2000, the petitioner has<\/p>\n
filed this apA1oe.._a’l. 0  A’ <\/p>\n
};j’0′.\u00abSri;\u00a7l:’iG2,,’-L.:Chandra1*n’ohan, learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
forlycointended that the judgment and decree<\/p>\n
 by the  below is contrary to law and facts of<\/p>\n
0 ;cacse.. The court below has grossly erred in accepting<\/p>\n
stateinent of respondent that she is ready and willing<\/p>\n
2%<\/p>\n
to undergo medical check-up and dismissing the petition<\/p>\n
is erroneous in law. The material on evidenc’e””=ei’early<\/p>\n
shows that the respondent had deserted  appelliant. <\/p>\n
Further, she is an impotent and itis in1po\u00abssib3e” tovlead <\/p>\n
marital life with an impotent. persdonhl\ufb02 The,’..’murf’t loeloiilvap<\/p>\n
without appreciating the oral aunrdi’docunienitaxyvligevidence
\ndismissed the petition; wfnicli is.’.erroneous in law and<\/p>\n
sought for dismissal of the’*sa:me-   the appeal\n<\/p>\n
11. On the  and Associates,
\nlearned   respondent contended<\/p>\n
that the court.  “considering the oral and<\/p>\n
docurnentary ext\/idenicle led by the parties found that the<\/p>\n
appeliant  made out a case for annulment of<\/p>\n
 rnarriagei’ ar1d.f;al:so a decree for divorce. Accordingly,<\/p>\n
_7~.._dis:nissed.. the petition. There is no infirmity in the order<\/p>\n
\/9”\n<\/p>\n
\n
EE<\/p>\n
passed by the court below and sought for dismissal of the<\/p>\n
appeal confirming the order passed by the court below.\n<\/p>\n
12. We have carefully gone through the arg1i1<ne.nts<\/p>\n
addressed by the learned counsel for the  <\/p>\n
considered the oral and docu1nenta_.ry.efvid_enee*:}jed\u00b0'oy.VthoeuV'<\/p>\n
parties.\n<\/p>\n
13. It is not in disputellltihat the  andel<\/p>\n
respondent are legally vweddepd””eouple.. The-\u00abirwrriarriage
\nwas solemnized on 236-   stayed in<\/p>\n
the marital._   and in View of audi<\/p>\n
month (Ashatla’)li she _\\7.l}ent.:’to4the parental house. Due to<\/p>\n
thgwed1\u00a7;c1;:’iand nst’ayv__t_i_nvthe marital house till 14–7-1999,<\/p>\n
therewllwas–.a=syrnptom of pregnancy to the respondent.<\/p>\n
She  test in St.Johns Clinical Lab and the<\/p>\n
._l_f_areport wasltpositive. She has informed the appellant<\/p>\n
 the same, however, there was spontaneous<\/p>\n
25\/<\/p>\n
abortions. The same was also informed to the appellant.<\/p>\n
The appellant has taken the respondent for test.<\/p>\n
The Doctor reported that respondent was <\/p>\n
pregnant. It was the allegationrof<\/p>\n
Doctor informed him that respon’dentV.d-idol: not’; <\/p>\n
menstrual cycle at all.  been
\nproduced by the appellan_t:”to  nor he has
\nproduced the report. of  alleges
\nthat the   she is unable to
\nbeget a ch.ild~..   she was very rude
\nand used   to the elder members of
\nthe family _vparticu’la_rl’yV to it  mother.<\/p>\n
 \u00bbA   ‘ojthepr hand, the respondent denied the<\/p>\n
I’*,__Vallegations’lofuftheiappellant. She states that the mother<\/p>\n
_ ‘the petitioner had taken her to Dr.Katuri at Bangarpet<\/p>\n
the”_\u00abDoctor reported that in View of spontaneous<\/p>\n
abortions, the respondent is anemic. She suggested for<\/p>\n
nutritious food and also suggested for treatmerlt\ufb01.;:”‘Ifo<\/p>\n
avoid the said expenditure the appellant    <\/p>\n
respondent to the parental house,” She  d<\/p>\n
the appellant demanded dowry of    A’ V<\/p>\n
15. The appellant, in etzide:nee”‘~-deposed. that their
\nmarriage has been  .At_’\u00e9.::.2’I3{~6–1999, the
\nrespondent stayedliri  till 14\u00ab–7~’5199-9
\nand their   He has deposed
\nthat the  house on 23-1-2000
\nand he haslliasued  as per EX.P.l calling upon
\n respoindentllltov the appellant. The respondent has<\/p>\n
 Vtaefper EX.P.2 expressing her Willingness to<\/p>\n
 join thelappell-alnt. H-oixkever, in the cross~’exaInin.atio;1,<\/p>\n
_ ____apppe1Ia:nt..has.vexpressedthat he is not ready to take the<\/p>\n
 to the marital house. The respondent in<\/p>\n
5\u00bb<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
her notice has stated that she is ready to undergo any<\/p>\n
medical test with any Doctor as per the choice ‘a’o_fgthe<\/p>\n
appellant. However, the appellant is not  <\/p>\n
medical tests done. In the cross:e2_(ami’n’a’tion. ‘”he’,haVs’ <\/p>\n
deposed that he is not ready for any:’_’.’m;ed’ica’l <\/p>\n
Further, the appellant has Vld:ep.osed’ that  note<\/p>\n
produced any medical report that th’e’~re’spondent
\nis an impotent and also  he.\\.,:_:has.1l__not taken the
\nrespondent for   lTh.e._.:appellant has not<\/p>\n
examined any  his contention that<\/p>\n
the respondent’  and she is not in a<\/p>\n
position V to beget’ ‘any’, clh_i\u00bbld~~~.”‘:<\/p>\n
   other Vh’and; the respondent examined herself<\/p>\n
as’ l._.R.E_V.’ 1 Vt’l.reiterated the averrnents made in the<\/p>\n
l”\u00b0”statem’e__nt of objections in the exarnination–in–chief. The<\/p>\n
 case of the respondent is that the marriage took<\/p>\n
A\u00bb<\/p>\n
as
\nplace between the appellant and respondent<\/p>\n
on 23-64999 and on the same day nuptial ceremonyjwas<\/p>\n
celebrated in her parental house and the marriage..”w’as<\/p>\n
consummated . After the marriage, they  <\/p>\n
husband and wife. During the aucli <\/p>\n
to her parental house where-.__she”aunderwent.__rr1e}\u00a7:lical:”;<\/p>\n
tests. It is found that th_er’e..:_was  of
\npregnancy. Subsequentlgn.   informed that<\/p>\n
there were spontan.eou’sW 7 ~,’l’he appellants<\/p>\n
Dr.Kasturi;._g The  the mother of the<\/p>\n
appellant _that”due_tjo lt’h’e’~~~abortion she was anemic and<\/p>\n
I-advisecleto be under medication and good diet to maintain<\/p>\n
normal- The appellant in order to avoid<\/p>\n
ln”‘Ve:x;penditure’,’  the respondent to her parental house<\/p>\n
it  deserted the respondent. In her cross\u00bb<\/p>\n
 eivgamination, the respondent has denied the suggestion<\/p>\n
Aw<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
of the appellant’s counsel that there is no satisfactory<\/p>\n
sexual intercourse with the appellant. Further4,sh._e:*has<\/p>\n
deposed that on 23-8-1999, she was with <\/p>\n
and she had sexual intercourse o_n….the said” ”<\/p>\n
has denied the suggestion of the <\/p>\n
there was no intercourse betweerithern c:lue._t”o  if<\/p>\n
17. It is the case of the..appVeiia.nt. that the-qresipondent
\nhad left the marital   Without
\nsufficient reason. he issued a
\nlegal notice calling  toconie back to the marital<\/p>\n
house and   lleirespondent sent a reply notice<\/p>\n
accepting the offerywiand wanted to stay in the marital<\/p>\n
thevzcfappellant. However, the appellant is not<\/p>\n
‘J.wagreealole ford-“.”p:.*;1qgevVlsame. The respondent informed the<\/p>\n
_:’_p’_:\u00ab_appye1lant she would undergo any medical test with<\/p>\n
i):o.’c’_tor as per the choice of the appellant. The<\/p>\n
Aw<\/p>\n
E7<\/p>\n
specific case of the respondent is that she is not an<\/p>\n
impotent and due to wedlock, there was  of<\/p>\n
pregnancy. However, there were spontaneous{abortion-s_\u00a7’ <\/p>\n
Hence it is clear that she is not an .iIn_potc’r1t,”havle”‘<\/p>\n
and healthy and she is physically  tolbleglet<\/p>\n
support of his contention,    nott<\/p>\n
examined any Doctors,  ~.’.l’o decl’a.relV'”that the particular
\nlady was an impotent,  must be
\nproduced before”    of the oral<\/p>\n
assertion made  the’ .ap.:Tpella’ntl,’; a decree of divorce<\/p>\n
cannot be?  of irnpotency. The<\/p>\n
impotency is inabili.ty_ to-._p’crform sexual intercourse, even<\/p>\n
after tlie\u00b0fair trial. Inthe instant case, the specific case<\/p>\n
of  the; it is that the marriage has been<\/p>\n
 due to the wedlock, there was a<\/p>\n
 it  pregnancy. Due to premature, it was<\/p>\n
 spontarieously aborted. That apart, the appellant himself<\/p>\n
A”\n<\/p>\n
\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
issued a notice to the respondent calling upon her to join<\/p>\n
him in the marital house. If the respondentV.Vlis’._an<\/p>\n
impotent, the question of issuing notice callingwuiiiojn <\/p>\n
respondent to join. him in the marital h_*ou’se:l’.’;does_’_notll”<\/p>\n
arise. Even in the notice issued, he  riot”<\/p>\n
allegations regarding impotenc\u00a7f:~~._oVHence,’  ll”afjp’elllantl”<\/p>\n
has not made out anyicasesi”‘fo.r:’;.gifant lof”‘di\\}:’orce or
\nannulment of the 12 of the
\nHindu Marriage  in the
\npetition alleging’.  stubborn, and she<\/p>\n
had scantl’respe’ctl’fo’r.:le\u00bbl,der:”members of the family, no
\nmaterial has   before the court or to show
\nparticu.1-ar vvincidelntiii which she has disrespected the<\/p>\n
eld’er_s;_:,l’falosence of the same, the case of the<\/p>\n
lilo’-A…..appe1la1fltl  be accepted. The court below after<\/p>\n
~ jeon’sideringV_ti1e oral and documentary evidence led by the<\/p>\n
5″\n<\/p>\n
\n
parties, dismissed the petition filed by the appe1lar;t___by a<\/p>\n
Well considered order.\n<\/p>\n
18. We do not find any ground to_JiI1t_\u00a2rfe:te'”wi.:i\u00a7f_i;  <\/p>\n
considered order passed by the co’e41rt–.’_A_beVloyv..  <\/p>\n
pass the following<\/p>\n
The appeal filed by <\/p>\n
Parties to__. be.ar’Alth’eir  H V<\/p>\n
._L_<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri Ravinanda Gopal vs Smt R Revathi @ Gayathri on 25 October, 2010 Author: K.L.Manjunath And B.Manohar IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.’ DATED THIS THE 25\u00a2: DAY OF OCTOBER,_;2~0l,_’Q: PRESENT THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE L. 3 ‘J THE HON’BLE MR. JUS*I*I.\u00a7fE MFA.NO.446_1 QF”2’dVQ8VVV(MC) BETWEEN: Sri.Ravinanda G0w;:a\u00a7;,.;:.’* ._ 2; S\/o\ufb02asharath:_Nai\u00e9d 33 ‘years, […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-253724","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Ravinanda Gopal vs Smt R Revathi @ Gayathri on 25 October, 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\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Ravinanda Gopal vs Smt R Revathi @ Gayathri on 25 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-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=\"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-03T01:32:10+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Ravinanda Gopal vs Smt R Revathi @ Gayathri on 25 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-03T01:32:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2317,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Sri Ravinanda Gopal vs Smt R Revathi @ Gayathri on 25 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-03T01:32:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Ravinanda Gopal vs Smt R Revathi @ Gayathri on 25 October, 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":"Sri Ravinanda Gopal vs Smt R Revathi @ Gayathri on 25 October, 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\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Ravinanda Gopal vs Smt R Revathi @ Gayathri on 25 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-03T01:32:10+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Ravinanda Gopal vs Smt R Revathi @ Gayathri on 25 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-03T01:32:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010"},"wordCount":2317,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010","name":"Sri Ravinanda Gopal vs Smt R Revathi @ Gayathri on 25 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-03T01:32:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ravinanda-gopal-vs-smt-r-revathi-gayathri-on-25-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Ravinanda Gopal vs Smt R Revathi @ Gayathri on 25 October, 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\/253724","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=253724"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253724\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=253724"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=253724"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=253724"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}