{"id":268629,"date":"2009-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009"},"modified":"2016-06-13T09:11:14","modified_gmt":"2016-06-13T03:41:14","slug":"sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sainaba vs P.Y.Ummer on 9 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sainaba vs P.Y.Ummer on 9 December, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 3900 of 2008()\n\n\n1. SAINABA, AGED 23, D\/O.KASHUNGUM\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. P.Y.UMMER, AGED 30, S\/O.MUHAMMAD, PUTHAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN\n\n Dated :09\/12\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                       P.S.GOPINATHAN,J.\n            =========================\n                    Crl.R.P.No.3900 of 2008\n                                &\n                    Crl.M.C.No.3461 of 2008\n           ==========================\n            Dated this the 9th day of December, 2009\n\n                             ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
      Both these proceedings are challenging the order in<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.45\/2007 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Manjeri.<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.45\/2007 was filed by the counter petitioner in<\/p>\n
M.C.No.25\/2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First<\/p>\n
Class-II, Parappanangadi, assailing the order directing him to<\/p>\n
pay a sum of Rs.2,500\/- towards the maintenance during the<\/p>\n
Iddat period and a sum of Rs.1,00,000\/- towards the fair and<\/p>\n
reasonable provision to be paid to the petitioner before the trial<\/p>\n
court under Section 3<\/a> of the Muslim Women (Protection of<\/p>\n
Rights on Divorce) Act<\/a>. Petitioner was married by the counter<\/p>\n
petitioner    on 10.9.1995. Parties are referred to as in<\/p>\n
M.C.25\/2002. On 26.09.2000, divorce was granted by the family<\/p>\n
court as per order in O.P.No.17\/2000. Thereupon, the petitioner<\/p>\n
filed the above petition before the trial court seeking an order to<\/p>\n
grant Rs.6,000\/- as maintenance during the iddat period and a<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.2,00,000\/- towards reasonable and fair provision. She<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.3900\/2008 & Crl.M.C.No.3461\/2008<\/p>\n
                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
had also claimed Rs.2,73,000\/- towards value of 50 sovereigns of<\/p>\n
gold ornaments and Rs.1,00,000\/- paid at the time of marriage.<\/p>\n
      2.     Counter petitioner objected the petition stating that<\/p>\n
he had not taken any gold ornaments or received any money<\/p>\n
belonging to the petitioner and that the order granting divorce is<\/p>\n
an ex parte one and that the amount claimed is exorbitant and<\/p>\n
that the petitioner is not entitled to get any amount as claimed<\/p>\n
and that he is only a hotel worker.\n<\/p>\n
      3.     During the enquiry, the petitioner and two others<\/p>\n
were examined as PWs.1 to 3 and Ext.P1 was marked. On the<\/p>\n
side of the counter petitioner, CPWs. 1 to 3 were examined. The<\/p>\n
trial court on evaluation of the evidence, arrived at a finding that<\/p>\n
the petitioner has not succeeded to establish that any gold<\/p>\n
ornaments or money belonging to her was appropriated by the<\/p>\n
counter petitioner.        Towards maintenance, during the iddat<\/p>\n
period, a sum of Rs.2,500\/- was awarded. Towards reasonable<\/p>\n
and fair provision, a sum of Rs.1,00,000\/- was granted.<\/p>\n
      4.     Assailing the said order, the counter petitioner<\/p>\n
preferred Crl.R.P.45\/2007. The petitioner did not challenge that<\/p>\n
order. The learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 4.07.2008<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.3900\/2008 & Crl.M.C.No.3461\/2008<\/p>\n
                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
dismissed the revision petition.\n<\/p>\n
      5.     Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of<\/p>\n
that order, the petitioner had preferred Crl.R.P.No.3900\/2008.<\/p>\n
Since the order in revision being one confirming the order<\/p>\n
granted by the trial court and the petitioner had not chosen to<\/p>\n
challenge the same in revision, she would not get a fresh cause<\/p>\n
of action to challenge the order dismissing Crl.R.P.No.45\/2007.<\/p>\n
Hence, R.P.3900\/2008 is not sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
      6.     Assailing the order in revision, the counter petitioner<\/p>\n
had preferred Crl.M.C.No.3461\/2008. The grievance is regarding<\/p>\n
the quantum. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
would submit that the revision petitioner is a coolie in a hotel<\/p>\n
and that within two years after the divorce the petitioner<\/p>\n
remarried and that the amount calculated by the trial court and<\/p>\n
confirmed in appeal is without any basis without taking into<\/p>\n
account the income of the respondent and the amount confirmed<\/p>\n
by the Additional Sessions Judge is unconceivable, erroneous<\/p>\n
and not justified.\n<\/p>\n
      7.     Having heard either side, I find that there is a little<\/p>\n
merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.3900\/2008 & Crl.M.C.No.3461\/2008<\/p>\n
                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner. In arriving at a calculation regarding the reasonable<\/p>\n
and fair provision, the trial court as well as the Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge had not taken into account either the income of<\/p>\n
the counter petitioner or the requirements of the petitioner.<\/p>\n
Neither the period between the divorce and remarriage was also<\/p>\n
taken into account. Amount was calculated without any basis.<\/p>\n
Time gap between divorce and remarriage is just two years.<\/p>\n
Taking into account of the status of the parties amount ordered<\/p>\n
is exorbitant and beyond the means of the counter petitioner. In<\/p>\n
this way, I find that reasonable and fair provision granted by the<\/p>\n
trial court as confirmed in revision is vitiated. Interest of Justice<\/p>\n
demands interference. Taking into account the status of the<\/p>\n
parties, I find that to determine the reasonable and fair provision<\/p>\n
the monthly requirements of the petitioner can be determined at<\/p>\n
Rs.2,000\/- (Rupees two thousand only) and it can be capitalised<\/p>\n
for a period of two years. If calculated so, it would come to<\/p>\n
Rs.48,000\/- (Rupees forty eight thousand only) and is rounded to<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). I find that the said<\/p>\n
amount would be reasonable and fair provision.<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.3900\/2008 & Crl.M.C.No.3461\/2008<\/p>\n
                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
      8.     In   the     result,   Crl.R.P.3900\/2008 is dismissed.<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.3461\/2008 is allowed in part. The reasonable and fair<\/p>\n
provision to be paid by the counter petitioner is reduced to<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) from Rs.1,00,000\/-<\/p>\n
(Rupees       one     lakh     only).     As  per   the order   in<\/p>\n
Crl.M.A.No.4928\/2008 dated 09.09.2008, this Court directed the<\/p>\n
respondent to remit an amount of Rs.50,000\/- (Rupees fifty<\/p>\n
thousand only) within two months. Thereafter, one month’s time<\/p>\n
was granted for depositing the amount. In the event that amount<\/p>\n
is not deposited on or before 28.12.2008, it would bear interest<\/p>\n
at the rate of 9% per annum from 28.12.2008. In all other<\/p>\n
respects order of the trial court is confirmed.<\/p>\n
                                            P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
dvs<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sainaba vs P.Y.Ummer on 9 December, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3900 of 2008() 1. SAINABA, AGED 23, D\/O.KASHUNGUM … Petitioner Vs 1. P.Y.UMMER, AGED 30, S\/O.MUHAMMAD, PUTHAN … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE For Petitioner :SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/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-268629","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSainaba vs P.Y.Ummer on 9 December, 2009 - 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\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sainaba vs P.Y.Ummer on 9 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-13T03:41:14+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sainaba vs P.Y.Ummer on 9 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-13T03:41:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":918,\"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\\\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Sainaba vs P.Y.Ummer on 9 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-13T03:41:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sainaba vs P.Y.Ummer on 9 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Sainaba vs P.Y.Ummer on 9 December, 2009 - 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\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sainaba vs P.Y.Ummer on 9 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-13T03:41:14+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sainaba vs P.Y.Ummer on 9 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-13T03:41:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009"},"wordCount":918,"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\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009","name":"Sainaba vs P.Y.Ummer on 9 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-13T03:41:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sainaba-vs-p-y-ummer-on-9-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sainaba vs P.Y.Ummer on 9 December, 2009"}]},{"@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\/268629","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=268629"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268629\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268629"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268629"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268629"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}