{"id":257761,"date":"2008-07-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008"},"modified":"2014-07-14T22:44:59","modified_gmt":"2014-07-14T17:14:59","slug":"joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Joseph Alias Biju George vs Mary Alias Priya Thomas on 30 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Joseph Alias Biju George vs Mary Alias Priya Thomas on 30 July, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRPFC.No. 244 of 2008()\n\n\n1. JOSEPH ALIAS BIJU GEORGE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. MARY ALIAS PRIYA THOMAS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. AKASH(MINOR), S\/O.BIJU GEORGE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.VIJAI MATHEWS\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :30\/07\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                           R. BASANT, J.\n             -------------------------------------------------\n                   R.P.(FC) No. 244 of 2008\n             -------------------------------------------------\n            Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008\n\n                                ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
      Can there be a settlement of a claim under Sec.125<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C<\/a>. before the Counsellor of the Family Court? Is the<\/p>\n
Family Court justified in accepting and acting upon such report<\/p>\n
of the Counsellor? These are the questions strenuously raised<\/p>\n
by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this revision<\/p>\n
petition at the stage of admission.\n<\/p>\n
      2.  Fundamental facts are not disputed.                Marriage is<\/p>\n
admitted.    Paternity is not in dispute.         That the spouses are<\/p>\n
residing separately is also not disputed.          Separate residence,<\/p>\n
according to the petitioner, started on 8\/12\/03. The claim for<\/p>\n
maintenance was filed by the claimants – wife and child, on<\/p>\n
16\/3\/07.     Parties were referred to Counsellor and the<\/p>\n
Counsellor made attempts to settle the dispute. On 10\/10\/07<\/p>\n
R.P.(FC) No. 244 of 2008 -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
there allegedly was a settlement before the Counsellor.       The<\/p>\n
Counsellor recorded that settlement, countersigned the same<\/p>\n
and along with a report submitted the same to the learned Judge<\/p>\n
of the Family Court. In such settlement, it was recorded that an<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.750\/- per mensem each shall be paid by the<\/p>\n
petitioner to both the claimants – his wife and child.       Such<\/p>\n
payment was agreed to be made from the date of the petition. It<\/p>\n
was also agreed that the petitioner shall send the amount by<\/p>\n
money order to the 1st claimant\/wife before the 15th of every<\/p>\n
month from November, 2007.        It is accepting and acting upon<\/p>\n
the said settlement arrived at before the Counsellor and reported<\/p>\n
to the court by the Counsellor after due counter signature that<\/p>\n
the learned Judge of the Family Court proceeded to pass the<\/p>\n
impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned<\/p>\n
order. What is the grievance? The signature in the agreement<\/p>\n
is not disputed.  It is contended that such a settlement before<\/p>\n
the Counsellor is of no legal effect or value. The learned Judge<\/p>\n
of the Family Court should not have accepted and acted upon<\/p>\n
such settlement.   In these circumstances, it is prayed that the<\/p>\n
R.P.(FC) No. 244 of 2008 -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
impugned order may be set aside and this revision petition may<\/p>\n
be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     4.   The learned counsel for the petitioner was heard in<\/p>\n
detail.  The learned counsel for the petitioner was specifically<\/p>\n
asked to respond to the specific stipulation in Rule 35 of the<\/p>\n
Family Courts (Kerala) Rules, 1989. The same reads as follows:<\/p>\n
                “35.         Settlement        before<\/p>\n
          Counsellor– When the parties arrive at a<\/p>\n
          settlement before the Counsellor relating<\/p>\n
          to the dispute or any part thereof, such<\/p>\n
          settlement shall be reduced to writing and<\/p>\n
          shall   be  signed    by  the  parties and<\/p>\n
          countersigned by the Counsellor.        The<\/p>\n
          court shall pronounce a decree or order in<\/p>\n
          terms thereof unless the court considers<\/p>\n
          the terms of the settlement unconscionable<\/p>\n
          or unlawful”\n<\/p>\n
\n
     5.   There is     no contention that     the settlement is<\/p>\n
unconscionable or unlawful.      There is no specific contention<\/p>\n
even that the petitioner’s signature was obtained fraudulently or<\/p>\n
without apprising him of the consequences. The counsel raises<\/p>\n
various contentions to assail the agreement on the basis of which<\/p>\n
R.P.(FC) No. 244 of 2008 -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
the impugned order was passed.\n<\/p>\n
      6.  The first contention that no settlement at all can be<\/p>\n
arrived at before the Counsellor cannot obviously be accepted in<\/p>\n
the light of the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 35 of<\/p>\n
the Family Courts (Kerala) Rules extracted above. The said first<\/p>\n
contention does therefore fall to the ground.<\/p>\n
      7.  Secondly it is contended that what happened on<\/p>\n
10\/10\/07 was not a settlement.      The contention is based on the<\/p>\n
reasoning that settlement contemplated under the Family Courts<\/p>\n
(Kerala) Rules can only be an agreement to unite and            live<\/p>\n
harmoniously.      I am afraid, I cannot agree.        The words<\/p>\n
“settlement” in language or in the context in which it is used in<\/p>\n
the of the Family Courts (Kerala) Rules cannot at all convey that<\/p>\n
only an agreement to reunite and resume harmonious<\/p>\n
cohabitation would fall within the ambit of the expression<\/p>\n
“settlement”.   Any arrangement by which the dispute is settled<\/p>\n
between the parties can fall within the ambit of the expression<\/p>\n
“settlement” in Rule 35.     This second contention cannot also<\/p>\n
hence succeed.\n<\/p>\n
      8. Thirdly and lastly it is contended that the petitioner was<\/p>\n
R.P.(FC) No. 244 of 2008 -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
not given legal assistance when the parties went for conciliation.<\/p>\n
The settlement arrived at without the assistance of a legal<\/p>\n
practitioner is not justified. The same must be eschewed and<\/p>\n
ignored, it is contended.   This contention cannot also obviously<\/p>\n
stand. The rationale of the provisions of the Family Courts Act<\/a><\/p>\n
and Rules is that assistance by a lawyer need be granted to a<\/p>\n
party even for the conduct of the case only if the court in its<\/p>\n
discretion feels the need to grant such permission. The fact that<\/p>\n
the petitioner was not assisted by a counsel does not vitiate the<\/p>\n
order passed on merits by the Family Court and definitely not an<\/p>\n
order passed on the basis of a settlement arrived at.<\/p>\n
      9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, it would appear,<\/p>\n
is perturbed by the fact that O.P.No.32\/07 is pending before the<\/p>\n
same court i.e., the Family Court, Kannur, for restitution of<\/p>\n
conjugal rights. It would appear that the apprehension of the<\/p>\n
petitioner is that this agreement to pay maintenance for the wife<\/p>\n
residing separately might affect his claim for restitution of<\/p>\n
conjugal rights adversely.      I need only mention that that<\/p>\n
apprehension is without any basis.      The settlement that has<\/p>\n
been reached which was reduced to writing under Rule 35 as<\/p>\n
R.P.(FC) No. 244 of 2008 -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
also the report of the Counsellor does not, in any way, have any<\/p>\n
bearing on the claim of the petitioner for restitution of conjugal<\/p>\n
rights.   I need only mention that the fact that the maintenance<\/p>\n
claim was settled and the maintenance was agreed to be paid<\/p>\n
will not, in any way, fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all<\/p>\n
relevant contentions before the Family Court in O.P.No.32\/07 for<\/p>\n
restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner, I feel, will even be<\/p>\n
able to contend that without prejudice to his contentions in the<\/p>\n
O.P. he had agreed to pay maintenance and that again only<\/p>\n
shows the bona fides of the petitioner.       Even that contention<\/p>\n
does appear to me to be possible before the Family Court in<\/p>\n
O.P.No.32\/07. At any rate, pendency of the said O.P. will not, in<\/p>\n
any way, vitiate the settlement which has been reached between<\/p>\n
the parties and reduced to writing in the presence of the<\/p>\n
Counsellor.\n<\/p>\n
      10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it<\/p>\n
may be clarified that if the petitioner succeeds in the O.P. for<\/p>\n
restitution of conjugal rights and the claimant\/wife does not<\/p>\n
comply with the said order, the petitioner shall be entitled to get<\/p>\n
the impugned order passed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C<\/a>. modified by<\/p>\n
R.P.(FC) No. 244 of 2008 -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
resort to the provisions of Sec.127 Cr.P.C<\/a>.         Certainly, if the<\/p>\n
petitioner succeeds in O.P.No.32\/07, his right to move the court<\/p>\n
under Sec.127 Cr.P.C<\/a>. for modification           of the order shall<\/p>\n
remain.\n<\/p>\n
      11.  I am satisfied, in these circumstances,         that this<\/p>\n
revision petition does not merit admission.           The same is<\/p>\n
dismissed with the above observations. I am satisfied that it is<\/p>\n
not necessary to order notice to the respondent and wait for<\/p>\n
service and appearance to dispose of this revision petition in<\/p>\n
these circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
      12. In the result, this RP(FC) is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                                    Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                         (R. BASANT, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
Nan\/<\/p>\n
                \/\/true copy\/\/<\/p>\n
                                       P.S. to Judge<\/p>\n
R.P.(FC) No. 244 of 2008 -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Joseph Alias Biju George vs Mary Alias Priya Thomas on 30 July, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RPFC.No. 244 of 2008() 1. JOSEPH ALIAS BIJU GEORGE, … Petitioner Vs 1. MARY ALIAS PRIYA THOMAS, … Respondent 2. AKASH(MINOR), S\/O.BIJU GEORGE, For Petitioner :SRI.VIJAI MATHEWS For Respondent : No […]<\/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-257761","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJoseph Alias Biju George vs Mary Alias Priya Thomas on 30 July, 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\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Joseph Alias Biju George vs Mary Alias Priya Thomas on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-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=\"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-07-14T17:14:59+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\\\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Joseph Alias Biju George vs Mary Alias Priya Thomas on 30 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-14T17:14:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1275,\"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\\\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Joseph Alias Biju George vs Mary Alias Priya Thomas on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-14T17:14:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Joseph Alias Biju George vs Mary Alias Priya Thomas on 30 July, 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":"Joseph Alias Biju George vs Mary Alias Priya Thomas on 30 July, 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\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Joseph Alias Biju George vs Mary Alias Priya Thomas on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-07-14T17:14:59+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\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Joseph Alias Biju George vs Mary Alias Priya Thomas on 30 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-14T17:14:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008"},"wordCount":1275,"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\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008","name":"Joseph Alias Biju George vs Mary Alias Priya Thomas on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-14T17:14:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-alias-biju-george-vs-mary-alias-priya-thomas-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Joseph Alias Biju George vs Mary Alias Priya Thomas on 30 July, 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\/257761","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=257761"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257761\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=257761"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=257761"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=257761"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}