{"id":257099,"date":"2007-01-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007"},"modified":"2014-11-10T21:16:26","modified_gmt":"2014-11-10T15:46:26","slug":"muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"Muthulakshmi vs Muthulakshi on 31 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Muthulakshmi vs Muthulakshi on 31 January, 2007<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 31\/01\/2007\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN\n\nCriminal Revision Case No.328 of 2004\nCriminal Revision Case No.329 of 2004\n\n1. Muthulakshmi\t\t\n\t \t\t..Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.328\/04\n\t\t\t\t\t\/2nd Accused\n2. Nagarajan\n\t\t\t..Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.329\/04\n\t\t\t\t\t\/1st accused\n\t\nVs.\n\n\nMuthulakshi  \t\t..Respondent<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t\t\t  \/Complainant<\/p>\n<p>Prayer<\/p>\n<p>These Criminal Revision Cases are filed under Section 397 r\/w 401 of<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/445276\/\" id=\"a_1\">Cr.P.C<\/a>. against the Judgment passed by the learned Additional District and<br \/>\nSessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul in C.A.NoS.26 &amp; 27\/2001 dated<br \/>\n16.12.2003, modifying the Judgment dated 22.03.2001 made in C.C.No.70\/2000 on<br \/>\nthe file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul.<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">\n\n\n!For Petitioners\t  : Mr.N.Sathish Babu\n\n^For Respondent \t  : Mr.A.Hariharan\n\n\n:COMMON ORDER\n\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\tThese Criminal Revisions are directed against the Judgment of the learned<br \/>\nAdditional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul in<br \/>\nC.A.Nos.26 and 27 of 2001 dated 16.12.2003, modifying the Judgment of the<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul in C.C.No.70\/2000 dated 22.03.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\t2. The petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.328\/04 is the second accused and the<br \/>\npetitioner in Crl.R.C.No.329\/04 is the first accused in C.C.No.70\/00 on the file<br \/>\nof the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul.  Since both the revisions arose out<br \/>\nof one and the same Judgment, they are taken up together and a common order is<br \/>\npassed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\t3. The case of the prosecution is briefly stated as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">\t(i) The complainant\/respondent herein was a resident of Paraipatti,<br \/>\nDindigul Taluk. The revision petitioners were residing in his house and they<br \/>\nhave moved with the complainant in a close manner.  At that time, the<br \/>\ncomplainant was working in Vijayakumar Mills, and her son Velmurugan, who<br \/>\nfinished +2 was a jobless youth. The revision petitioners said that they will<br \/>\nget a job for him in District Collector&#8217;s Office.  The second accused&#8217;s father<br \/>\nand the first accused&#8217;s husband are brothers. An amount of Rs.25,500\/- was<br \/>\nhanded over by the complainant to the second accused in Paraipatti. At that<br \/>\ntime, the first accused was present.  They promised to get job for the<br \/>\ncomplainant&#8217;s son in future. After one month, they said that the job is ready<br \/>\nand have to pay Rs.5,000\/- further and after paying the said amount to the<br \/>\naccused, when the complainant asked them about the job, she was informed that it<br \/>\nwill take further three months time.  After three months, when she approached<br \/>\nthe accused they told, it will take another three months. The complainant in<br \/>\nsuspicion, demanded them to pay back the amount.  The accused promised to pay<br \/>\nthe amount.  The first accused sent a letter on 13.07.1992 that the amount will<br \/>\nbe paid within a month.  Again on 21.07.1992, the first accused wrote a letter,<br \/>\nstating that he will send the amount and the complainant need not come.  On<br \/>\n16.10.1992, a Panchayat was convened.  In the Panchayat, the first accused<br \/>\nexecuted a pro note agreeing to pay Rs.30,500\/- within two months.  Even after<br \/>\ntwo months, they did not pay.  So, the complainant has preferred complaint<br \/>\nbefore the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul.  But no action was taken thereon<br \/>\nby the Police.  The revision petitioners have committed offence under <a href=\"\/doc\/1249173\/\" id=\"a_1\">Sections<br \/>\n405<\/a> and <a href=\"\/doc\/1436241\/\" id=\"a_2\">420<\/a> IPC.  Therefore, the complainant sent lawyer&#8217;s notice to the accused<br \/>\nthrough registered post.  The accused received the notice, but they did not send<br \/>\nany reply.  So, she filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate<br \/>\nNo.I, Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\t4. On consideration of evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,<br \/>\nDindigul found the accused guilty under <a href=\"\/doc\/1791573\/\" id=\"a_3\">Section 417<\/a> of Cr.P.C. and sentenced<br \/>\nthem to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.  Aggrieved over the Judgment of<br \/>\nthe learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul appeals were preferred by both<br \/>\nthe accused in C.A.Nos.26 &amp; 27 of 2003 before the learned  Additional District<br \/>\nand Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul.  The learned Additional<br \/>\nDistrict and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul found the accused<br \/>\nguilty of offence under <a href=\"\/doc\/105503\/\" id=\"a_4\">Section 417<\/a> of IPC, but modified the sentence to the<br \/>\neffect that the  accused to undergo imprisonment till rising of Court, and<br \/>\ndirected to pay Rs.30,500\/- by way of compensation to the respondent\/complainant<br \/>\nunder <a href=\"\/doc\/640437\/\" id=\"a_5\">Section 357(3)<\/a> of Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo 3 months rigorous<br \/>\nimprisonment.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\tChallenging the Judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions<br \/>\nJudge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul, these revisions are filed by the<br \/>\npetitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\t 5. The  point  for  determination in these reivisions is Whether the<br \/>\naccused are guilty under <a href=\"\/doc\/105503\/\" id=\"a_6\">Section 417<\/a> of IPC?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">6.POINT:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">\tOn the basis of the complaint given by the complainant, the case was taken<br \/>\non file.  Before the trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6<br \/>\nwere marked.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">\t 7. P.W.1 was the complainant and her son Velmurugan who completed +2 was<br \/>\njobless youth.  The accused were residing near the house of P.W.1\/complainant.<br \/>\nThey moved with P.W.1 smoothly given promised to obtain job in District<br \/>\nCollectorate&#8217;s Office for her son.  So, naturally P.W.1 approached them for<br \/>\ngetting a job in Collectorate&#8217;s Office, which is not easy one.    So, naturally<br \/>\nshe would have believed the attractive words of the accused and handed over<br \/>\nRs.30,500\/-. The revision petitioners promised to get a job for the son of<br \/>\nComplainant, who was a jobless youth. Inspite of promise given by the revision<br \/>\npetitioners, they neither get the job nor repay the amount. The first accused<br \/>\nsent two letters, Exs.P1 and P2 that he will pay the amount.  Since the amount<br \/>\nwas not paid, a Panchayat was convened on 16.10.1992 in the presence of P.Ws.2<br \/>\nand 3.  In the Panchayat, the petitioners agreed to pay the amount within two<br \/>\nmonths from 16.10.1992.  Ex.P3 was the letter written by him.  In Ex.P3, A1 has<br \/>\ncategorically admitted the he received Rs.30,500\/- from the complainant to get a<br \/>\njob for her son and as he was not able to obtain a job, he prepared to return<br \/>\nthe amount.  Inspite of the undertaking given under Ex.P3, the amount was not<br \/>\npaid.  So, on 18.6.1994 the complainant sent legal notice, demanding the amount<br \/>\nreceived by them.  Ex.P4 is the copy of the notice.  Ex.P5 is the<br \/>\nacknowledgement.  Inspite of the legal notice issued by the complainant, the<br \/>\naccused did not come forward to pay the amount.  The failure on the part of the<br \/>\naccused to send reply for the notice issued by the complainant has strengthened<br \/>\nthe case of the complainant.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">\t8. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 would categorically prove that the accused<br \/>\nreceived Rs.30,500\/- to get a job for the son of complainant in Collector<br \/>\nOffices&#8217; office and it is also admitted by the  petitioners in letter and they<br \/>\nhave executed a pronote for the same.  Further, the revision petitioners have<br \/>\nnot chosen to send reply to the lawyer&#8217;s notice issued by the complainant.<br \/>\nThese are all would go to show that the accused are guilty of the offence.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">\t9. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision reported<br \/>\nin AIR 1999 SC 2332 (Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepads Vallabha Venkata Vishwandadha<br \/>\nMaharaj, Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others) and argued that the case will<br \/>\ncome under the case of cheating.  In the said case, the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court<br \/>\nhas held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">\t&#8220;8. If somebody offers his prayers to God for healing the sick, there<br \/>\ncannot normally be any element of fraud.  But if he represents to another that<br \/>\nhe has divine powers and either directly or indirectly makes that another person<br \/>\nbelieve that he has such divine powers, it is inducement referred to <a href=\"\/doc\/1306824\/\" id=\"a_7\">Section 415<\/a><br \/>\nof the IPC.  Anybody who responds to such inducement pursuant to it and gives<br \/>\nthe inducer money or any other article and does not get the desired result is a<br \/>\nvictim of the fraudulent representation.  Court can in such a situation presume<br \/>\nthat the offence of cheating falling within the ambit of <a href=\"\/doc\/1436241\/\" id=\"a_8\">Section 420<\/a> of the IPC<br \/>\nhas been committed. It is for the accused, in such a situation, to rebut the<br \/>\npresumption.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">\t10. The learned counsel further relied on the decision reported in 2006<br \/>\n(4) CTC (indian oil corporation vs. Nepc india ltd.,) and argued that the case<br \/>\nwill come under <a href=\"\/doc\/1306824\/\" id=\"a_9\">Section 415<\/a> of IPC. In this case,<br \/>\nby a false and misleading representation, the revision petitioners with<br \/>\ndishonest intention, obtained Rs.30,500\/- from the complainant\/P.W.1, thereby<br \/>\nthey caused damage to the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">\t11. So, on a careful consideration, I find that the petitioners are guilty<br \/>\nof offence under <a href=\"\/doc\/1306824\/\" id=\"a_10\">Section 415<\/a> of IPC.  Moreover, the appellate court also reduced<br \/>\nthe sentence and the respondent has not chosen to file any revision against the<br \/>\nsame.  So, this Court has to confirm the finding of the lower appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">\t12. I am of the considered view that there is no illegality in the finding<br \/>\nof the lower appellate Court and   the same is confirmed.  These Criminal<br \/>\nRevision Cases are dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Muthulakshmi vs Muthulakshi on 31 January, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 31\/01\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN Criminal Revision Case No.328 of 2004 Criminal Revision Case No.329 of 2004 1. Muthulakshmi ..Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.328\/04 \/2nd Accused 2. Nagarajan ..Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.329\/04 \/1st accused Vs. Muthulakshi ..Respondent [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-257099","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Muthulakshmi vs Muthulakshi on 31 January, 2007 - 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\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Muthulakshmi vs Muthulakshi on 31 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-10T15:46:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Muthulakshmi vs Muthulakshi on 31 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-10T15:46:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1415,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007\",\"name\":\"Muthulakshmi vs Muthulakshi on 31 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-10T15:46:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Muthulakshmi vs Muthulakshi on 31 January, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Muthulakshmi vs Muthulakshi on 31 January, 2007 - 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\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Muthulakshmi vs Muthulakshi on 31 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-10T15:46:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Muthulakshmi vs Muthulakshi on 31 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-10T15:46:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007"},"wordCount":1415,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007","name":"Muthulakshmi vs Muthulakshi on 31 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-10T15:46:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthulakshmi-vs-muthulakshi-on-31-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Muthulakshmi vs Muthulakshi on 31 January, 2007"}]},{"@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\/257099","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=257099"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257099\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=257099"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=257099"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=257099"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}