{"id":271201,"date":"2009-06-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009"},"modified":"2015-08-31T22:53:43","modified_gmt":"2015-08-31T17:23:43","slug":"velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Velayudhan vs Shyamala Sathiyan on 3 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Velayudhan vs Shyamala Sathiyan on 3 June, 2009<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.MC.No. 3146 of 2005()\n\n\n1. VELAYUDHAN, S\/O.RARICHAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. GIRISH, S\/O.APPU,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SHYAMALA SATHIYAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR\n\n Dated :03\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                            C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.\n                     --------------------------------------------\n                       CRL. M..C. NO. 3146 OF 2005\n                     --------------------------------------------\n\n                     Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009\n\n\n                                  ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">       1.    Petitioners are accused in C.C No. 97\/2005 on the files of the<\/p>\n<p>Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode. Its genesis is from Annexure-A<\/p>\n<p>complaint filed by the 1st respondent, alleging commission of offences<\/p>\n<p>punishable under Section 344, 346, 347 read with 34<a href=\"\/doc\/1569253\/\" id=\"a_1\"> of the Indian Penal<\/p>\n<p>Code<\/a>, by the petitioners. As per Annexure-A complaint, the husband of the<\/p>\n<p>1st respondent\/ defacto complainant is under illegal confinement of the<\/p>\n<p>petitioners and according to her, her husband was last seen along with them<\/p>\n<p>and thenceforth, she is in the dark on his whereabouts. It is stated therein<\/p>\n<p>that he is so missing from 9.2.2004 onwards. The learned Magistrate took<\/p>\n<p>cognizance on Annexure-A complaint and issued summons to the<\/p>\n<p>petitioners. The petitioner have filed the above Cr.M.C seeking to quash<\/p>\n<p>the entire proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,<\/p>\n<p>Kozhikode in C.C No.97\/2005.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\n<p id=\"p_2\">       2.    The case of the 1st respondent as could be seen from Annexure-<\/p>\n<p>A, is that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intension<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">Crl.M.CNo.3146 of 2005               2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>wrongfully confined her husband with a view to extort his property. Per<\/p>\n<p>contra the counsel for the petitioners brought to my attention to certain<\/p>\n<p>relevant and material facts which would belie the entire allegations and<\/p>\n<p>would throw light to the absolute absence of ingredients to constitute the<\/p>\n<p>offenses alleged against them. Earlier the 1st respondent had filed a<\/p>\n<p>complaint as C.M.P No.707\/04 with the same set of allegations before the<\/p>\n<p>Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kozhikode seeking to issue a<\/p>\n<p>general search warrant. However, the learned Magistrate dismissed the<\/p>\n<p>same as on 6.3.2004. Though, initially, a crime was registered as Crime<\/p>\n<p>No.78\/2004, again with the same set of allegations at Alathur Police station,<\/p>\n<p>the police have referred the matter &#8220;as further action dropped&#8221;because the<\/p>\n<p>husband of the 1st respondent, Mr. Sathiyan, the man alleged to be missing,<\/p>\n<p>appeared in the police station and gave statement to the contrary. He had<\/p>\n<p>specifically stated that he was an absolutely free man and not under any<\/p>\n<p>sort of confinement. Against the said order of the learned Magistrate in<\/p>\n<p>Crl.M.C No.707\/04, the 1st respondent had filed Crl.R.P 24\/04 before the<\/p>\n<p>Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The court summoned the case diary in Crime<\/p>\n<p>No.78\/04 and perused the entire diary as is evident from the Annexure-F<\/p>\n<p>order dated 28.7.04 in Crl.R.P No.24\/04. In this context paragraph 7 of<\/p>\n<p>Annexure-F is worthy to be extracted and the same reads as hereunder:-<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">Crl.M.CNo.3146 of 2005                3<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>           I have also perused the other documents produced<br \/>\n           in this case: wherein it is seen that Sathiyan had<br \/>\n           approached the Hon&#8217;ble High Court of Ketrala for<br \/>\n           police protection from the harassment of the wife<br \/>\n           and her family members. It is also seen that the<br \/>\n           petition before the Matrimonial Court is also filed<br \/>\n           and another application is filed before the court of<br \/>\n           the J.F.C.M, Koyilandy as well against the husband.<br \/>\n           So, it is very clear from the documents available in<br \/>\n           this case that the husband and wife are fighting<br \/>\n           each other and the husband before the S.I of Police<br \/>\n           had made a statement to the effect that he is not<br \/>\n           under illegal custody of anybody. For an action u\/s<br \/>\n           97 <a href=\"\/doc\/445276\/\" id=\"a_1\">Cr.P.C<\/a> what is required is that if any District<br \/>\n           Magistrate,    Sub    Divisional   Magistrate  or   a<br \/>\n           Magistrate of the First Class has reason to believe<br \/>\n           that   any    person    is  confined    under   such<br \/>\n           circumstance, that confinement amounts to an<br \/>\n           offence, then he may issue a search warrant. So,<br \/>\n           there must be materials to show that there is reason<br \/>\n           to believe that a person is confined and that it<br \/>\n           amounts to an offence. Here, from the materials<br \/>\n           available, it has come out that the husband of the<br \/>\n           revision-petitioner is not at all confined and he had<br \/>\n           stated before the police regarding the same and<br \/>\n           further he had moved an application before the<br \/>\n           Hon&#8217;ble High Court for police protection from the<br \/>\n           wife and the members of the family of the wife.<br \/>\n           When that is the circumstance, I think the learned<br \/>\n           Magistrate has correctly appreciated and analysed<br \/>\n           the facts and dismissed the application u\/s 97<br \/>\n           <a href=\"\/doc\/445276\/\" id=\"a_2\">Cr.P.C<\/a>. It does not suffer from any infirmity at all.<br \/>\n           Therefore the revision is devoid of any merit and<br \/>\n           the same is only to be dismissed and I do so.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\n<p id=\"p_4\">     3.     Another most important aspect is that the person alleged to be<\/p>\n<p>missing illegally confined, himself had approached this court by filing<\/p>\n<p>W.P.C No.6144\/04 with a prayer for police protection. In fact the said<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">Crl.M.CNo.3146 of 2005                   4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>petition was filed against his brother- in- laws who are the brothers of the<\/p>\n<p>1st respondent. The very fact that the person alleged to be missing himself<\/p>\n<p>had approached this court during the relevant time by filing a writ petition<\/p>\n<p>itself is sufficient to sustain the contentions of the petitioners. That apart,<\/p>\n<p>the 1st respondent herself filed an affidavit in C.C No.871\/04 before the<\/p>\n<p>Judicial Magistrate Court, Koyilandy on 30.11.04 and the same would also<\/p>\n<p>take me to the conclusion that Annexure-A is a complaint undeserving<\/p>\n<p>prosecution on its basis. A copy of the same has been produced in this<\/p>\n<p>Crl.M.C as Annexure-G. A bare perusal of Annexure-G would reveal that<\/p>\n<p>the 1st respondent is fully aware of the whereabouts of her husband and<\/p>\n<p>according to her he is abroad. It would also reveal that she is absolutely<\/p>\n<p>astute to the apsect that he is a free man and he is employed there. Under<\/p>\n<p>the circumstances exapatiated above no person could believe that the 1st<\/p>\n<p>respondent is absolutely unaware of the whereabouts of her husband. Infact<\/p>\n<p>there are pending disputes between them including matrimonial cases. The<\/p>\n<p>petitioner herself admits that one of the petitioners herein is none other than<\/p>\n<p>the nephew of her husband and the other was a helper of her husband. In<\/p>\n<p>the circumstances it can only be said that Annexure-A complaint is filed<\/p>\n<p>ulterior motives and also with a mala fide intension.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\n<p id=\"p_6\">       4.     The court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_3\">CRL.M.CNo.3146 of 2005                5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>therefore, in view of the above discussions I am of the view that the<\/p>\n<p>criminal proceedings initiated by filing of Annexure-A complaint is an<\/p>\n<p>abuse of process of the court. I have already found that regard to the<\/p>\n<p>materials before me I am fully convinced that the ingredients of the offences<\/p>\n<p>alleged against the petitioners are not satisfied in Annexure-A and that even<\/p>\n<p>if the same is allowed to be proceeded with the chance of an ultimate<\/p>\n<p>conviction is bleak. It would also result in wasting of the precious judicial<\/p>\n<p>time. In these cirumstances, I think this is an eminently fit case to invoke the<\/p>\n<p>inherent jurisdiction under <a href=\"\/doc\/1679850\/\" id=\"a_3\">Section 482<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure.<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">      5.     Accordingly, the entire proceedings before the Chief Judicial<\/p>\n<p>Magistrate, Kozhikode in C.C No.97\/o5 based on Annexure-A complaint is<\/p>\n<p>quashed and consequently, no proceedings shall be continued against the<\/p>\n<p>petitioners in C.C No.97\/05.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">\n<p id=\"p_9\">      The criminal M.C is allowed as above.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">\n<p id=\"p_11\">                                           (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)<\/p>\n<p>spc<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Velayudhan vs Shyamala Sathiyan on 3 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 3146 of 2005() 1. VELAYUDHAN, S\/O.RARICHAN, &#8230; Petitioner 2. GIRISH, S\/O.APPU, Vs 1. SHYAMALA SATHIYAN, &#8230; Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN For Respondent :SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE The Hon&#8217;ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR Dated :03\/06\/2009 [&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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-271201","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Velayudhan vs Shyamala Sathiyan on 3 June, 2009 - 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\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Velayudhan vs Shyamala Sathiyan on 3 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-06-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-31T17:23:43+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Velayudhan vs Shyamala Sathiyan on 3 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-31T17:23:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1184,\"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\\\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Velayudhan vs Shyamala Sathiyan on 3 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-31T17:23:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Velayudhan vs Shyamala Sathiyan on 3 June, 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":"Velayudhan vs Shyamala Sathiyan on 3 June, 2009 - 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\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Velayudhan vs Shyamala Sathiyan on 3 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-31T17:23:43+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Velayudhan vs Shyamala Sathiyan on 3 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-31T17:23:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009"},"wordCount":1184,"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\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009","name":"Velayudhan vs Shyamala Sathiyan on 3 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-31T17:23:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-shyamala-sathiyan-on-3-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Velayudhan vs Shyamala Sathiyan on 3 June, 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\/271201","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=271201"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271201\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=271201"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=271201"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=271201"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}