{"id":29302,"date":"2010-09-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010"},"modified":"2018-04-14T08:46:30","modified_gmt":"2018-04-14T03:16:30","slug":"manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Manoj Ambastha vs Smt.Lakshmy Rani Kapoor on 3 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Manoj Ambastha vs Smt.Lakshmy Rani Kapoor on 3 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Shiva Kirti Singh<\/div>\n
                MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.370 OF 2005\n\n      Manoj Ambastha son of Shri A. K. Sinha at present resident of\n      Mohalla- Anandpuri, P.S. S.K.Puri, Town and District Patna\n                                            ..... Petitioner- Appellant\n                                   VERSUS\n      Smt. Lakshmy Rani Kapoor daughter of Prof. Brahma Deo Prasad,\n      resident of Sadar Gali, Khajekallan, P.,S. Khajekallan, Patnacity,\n      District Patna                       .... Respondent - Respondent\n                                    WITH\n\n                MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.179 OF 2006\n\n      Lakshmy Rani Kapoor D\/o Brahmadeo Prasad, R\/o Sadar Gali, Patna\n      city, P.S. Khajekala, Distt. Patna\n                                                  .... Appellant - Respondent\n                                      VERSUS\n      Manoj Ambastha son of Awadhesh Kumar Sinha, R\/o Manorama\n      Karkil Kunj Flat No.204 B, Boring Canal Road- 8, posted at Distt.\n      Mining Officer, New Secretariat, Patna\n                                                   .... Respondent- Petitioner\n                                      -----------\n<\/pre>\n
      Against the common judgment and order dated 20.8.2005 passed in
\n      Matrimonial Case No.28 of 1996 by the Principal Judge, Family
\n      Court, Patna\n<\/p>\n
                                       ———-\n<\/p>\n
      For the Appellant -        : M\/s Janardan Pd. Singh and\n      Respondent                  Upendra Kumar Singh, Advocates\n\n      For the Respondent -       : Mrs Lakshmy Rani Kapoor, In- person\n      Appellant\n                                       ---------\n\n                                    PRESENT\n\n       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH\n<\/pre>\n
       THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA<\/p>\n
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.       Both the appeals under Section 19 of the Family<\/p>\n
      Court Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arise out of a<\/p>\n
      common order dated 20.8.2005 passed in Matrimonial Case No.28 of<\/p>\n
      1996 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna under Section 25 of
\n                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
the Act. By the order under appeal, the learned court below has not<\/p>\n
accepted the claim of the appellant Lakshmy Rani Kappor ( for short<\/p>\n
‘the wife’) for a lump sum permanent alimony of Rs.30 lakhs but has<\/p>\n
granted alimony by way of monthly payment of Rs.10,000\/-. The<\/p>\n
wife has preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No.179 of 2006 for decree<\/p>\n
of her claim of Rs.30 lakhs by way of permanent alimony in one<\/p>\n
lump sum whereas Manoj Ambastha (for short ‘the husband’) has<\/p>\n
preferred the other appeal on the ground that the award of Rs.10,000\/-<\/p>\n
per month by way of alimony is excessive.\n<\/p>\n
2.           For proper appreciation of the issue involved in these<\/p>\n
appeals, a look at the background facts in brief appears to be relevant.<\/p>\n
The husband brought about Matrimonial Suit No.28 of 1996 under<\/p>\n
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of<\/p>\n
divorce against his wife on the grounds of cruelty, desertion and<\/p>\n
adultery. The allegations were denied by his wife who alleged cruelty<\/p>\n
on the part of the husband such as by demand of dowry, physical<\/p>\n
assault etc. On these grounds she also prayed for a decree of divorce<\/p>\n
which was granted by judgment and decree dated 28.9.2000.<\/p>\n
However, on some technical ground such as lack of verification and<\/p>\n
affidavit, the Family Court did not allow permanent alimony.<\/p>\n
3.           The wife challenged the denial of permanent alimony and<\/p>\n
maintenance before this Court through Miscellaneous Appeal No.587<\/p>\n
of 2000. By judgment and order dated 5.3.2003, this Court directed<\/p>\n
the husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000\/- per month till
\n                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
a final decision of her claim for alimony and maintenance under<\/p>\n
Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and remitted the matter to the<\/p>\n
Family Court for a decision within four months.\n<\/p>\n
4.          It is further relevant to note that Miscellaneous Appeal<\/p>\n
No.587 of 2000 preferred by the wife was also directed against<\/p>\n
findings like desertion and cruelty which were made the ground for<\/p>\n
grant of divorce. In that appeal an order was passed    on 19.3.2001<\/p>\n
which is Annexure-3 to Miscellaneous Appeal No.370 of 2005. By<\/p>\n
that order while fixing interim maintenance of Rs.4000 per month, a<\/p>\n
Division Bench of this Court held that only for technical reasons the<\/p>\n
court below had examined the alleged grounds for divorce and held<\/p>\n
them good for granting divorce along with a finding that the divorce<\/p>\n
between the two had become a necessity. This Court held that the<\/p>\n
discussions and findings regarding desertion and cruelty were<\/p>\n
superfluous and in the facts of the case, could not be taken seriously<\/p>\n
so as to affect the claim of the wife for permanent alimony under<\/p>\n
Section 25 of the Act. By that order this court revised the interim<\/p>\n
maintenance from Rs.1600 to Rs.4000\/- per month till the court below<\/p>\n
passed final orders under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and<\/p>\n
disposed of the matrimonial suit. Against that order the husband<\/p>\n
preferred Civil Review No.60 of 2001 which was heard with the main<\/p>\n
Miscellaneous Appeal No.587 of 2000 leading to final disposal of the<\/p>\n
Miscellaneous Appeal by order dated 5.3.2003 which is Annexure -4<\/p>\n
to Miscellaneous Appeal No.370 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
5.          In spite of direction to dispose of the application under<\/p>\n
Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act within four months, the matter<\/p>\n
remained pending because of non- cooperative attitude of the<\/p>\n
husband. He had filed MJC No.932 of 2003 before this Court for<\/p>\n
modification of the final judgment dated 5.3.2003 passed by this<\/p>\n
Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No.587 of 2000. That matter was<\/p>\n
finally disposed of by order dated 10.3.2005. A copy of that order is<\/p>\n
Annexure- 1 to Miscellaneous Appeal No.179 of 2006. Therein this<\/p>\n
Court noticed the non- cooperative attitude of the husband as he had<\/p>\n
disregarded the order of the Family Court to give details of his<\/p>\n
property and latest salary statement.    The interim maintenance of<\/p>\n
Rs.4000\/- per month granted on the basis of salary of Rs.13,000\/- at<\/p>\n
the relevant time as decided on 19.3.2001 was not interfered with and<\/p>\n
several directions were issued by this Court for expediting the<\/p>\n
proceeding before the Family Court and for its disposal within a<\/p>\n
period of four months. Thereafter, the order under appeal was passed<\/p>\n
on 20.8.2005.\n<\/p>\n
6.          As per order of remand passed by this Court, the Family<\/p>\n
Court reconsidered the entire matter relevant for deciding permanent<\/p>\n
alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage<\/p>\n
Act. For this, it considered the conduct of the parties by discussing<\/p>\n
the relevant materials on this issue in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the<\/p>\n
impugned order and came to a conclusion in paragraph 14 that both<\/p>\n
sides had made allegations against each other but the beginning was
\n                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
made from the husband side and there is nothing in the conduct of the<\/p>\n
wife to deprive her of alimony or for grant of reduced alimony.<\/p>\n
7.             On the issue of income of the parties, the court below<\/p>\n
noticed that the husband was a Class II officer in Government of<\/p>\n
Bihar for more than 16 years and his salary chart in Exhibit B series<\/p>\n
was also noticed along with the fact that since sometime he was under<\/p>\n
suspension. It was also noticed that the wife had no property in her<\/p>\n
name and her father was free to dispose of his property any way he<\/p>\n
liked. The husband had admitted in his evidence that he has some<\/p>\n
ancestral lands along with some co-sharers but insisted that there is no<\/p>\n
income from those properties. On behalf of the wife, sale deed dated<\/p>\n
24.1.1970 (Exhibit 10) in the name of her husband and report<\/p>\n
regarding 16 acres of ancestral properties was brought on record but<\/p>\n
the court found that income from such properties could not be<\/p>\n
established.    The statement of the petitioner husband that he had<\/p>\n
booked a flat in which he was residing but registration had not been<\/p>\n
done till date was noticed by the court below. However, allotment<\/p>\n
letter from the builder and developer in favour of the husband was<\/p>\n
brought on record as Exhibit 7 in respect of a flat in Manorama Kokil<\/p>\n
Kunj Apartment, Anandpuri, Patna.          Application for electrical<\/p>\n
connection in that flat by the husband and electric bill for the meter<\/p>\n
installed therein were also exhibited. The court below also noticed<\/p>\n
Exhibit 9, a telephone bill in the name of father of the husband<\/p>\n
installed in Ram Krishna Villa, Mahesh Nagar, Patna but it found that
\n                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
the same was not sufficient to prove ownership of that house in favour<\/p>\n
of the husband or his father.\n<\/p>\n
8.           After considering the various case laws cited by the<\/p>\n
parties, the court below found her entitled for permanent alimony but<\/p>\n
since it held that there was nothing on record that the husband<\/p>\n
petitioner was in possession of huge cash, bank balance or more than<\/p>\n
one residential house, the court below found it proper to award<\/p>\n
monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000\/- per month with effect<\/p>\n
from 1.10.2000 i.e. after decree of divorce dated 28.9.2000.<\/p>\n
9.           In view of the fact that the husband was under suspension<\/p>\n
at the relevant time the court below permitted him to continue<\/p>\n
payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.4000\/- only per month and it<\/p>\n
was directed that payment \/ recovery of arrears of remaining<\/p>\n
Rs.6000\/- per month shall remain in abeyance till decision of the<\/p>\n
Department on his suspension or till he starts getting full pay. It was<\/p>\n
further directed that in case suspension of the husband petitioner is<\/p>\n
revoked, the concerned Department shall deduct balance of the<\/p>\n
remaining maintenance amount from the arrears of salary and pay the<\/p>\n
same to the wife respondent. But in case he is dismissed from service<\/p>\n
on account of departmental proceeding pending against him, he will<\/p>\n
continue paying monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.4000\/- per<\/p>\n
month only. The immovable property of the husband was placed<\/p>\n
under- charge for the payment\/ recovery of the arrears of maintenance<\/p>\n
amount.\n<\/p>\n
                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
10.           It is not in dispute that the husband remained under<\/p>\n
suspension from May 2003 till March 2007 and during this period, he<\/p>\n
was getting only subsistence allowance and has already paid<\/p>\n
maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000\/- per month.<\/p>\n
11.           After revocation of suspension on 1.4.2007, the wife<\/p>\n
made a prayer before this Court in these appeals that the husband may<\/p>\n
be directed to pay the arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000\/-<\/p>\n
per month and to continue to pay future maintenance at that rate as per<\/p>\n
direction in the order under appeal, till the disposal of these appeals.<\/p>\n
That matter was considered and by order dated 4.8.2008 this Court<\/p>\n
considered the Income tax salary statement pertaining to the husband,<\/p>\n
then posted as Mineral Development Officer, for the financial year<\/p>\n
2007-08 which showed salary in excess of Rs.22,000\/- per month and<\/p>\n
directed that from 1.4.2007 the husband shall pay permanent alimony<\/p>\n
at the rate of Rs.10,000\/- and the arrears for the period from 1.4.2007<\/p>\n
till 31.7.2008 were also directed to be paid in installments.<\/p>\n
Admittedly, those arrears have been paid as per direction of this<\/p>\n
Court.     Complaints have been made by the wife that the current<\/p>\n
maintenance is being paid after delay and allegedly defaults have<\/p>\n
taken place. In defence, it has been submitted that delay has been<\/p>\n
caused on occasions due to wife not being available at the known<\/p>\n
address.\n<\/p>\n
12.           On behalf of the appellant husband it has been submitted<\/p>\n
that through a supplementary affidavit in Miscellaneous Appeal
\n                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
No.370 of 2005 the order of punishment in departmental proceeding<\/p>\n
dated 3.4.2007 has been brought on record which shows that for the<\/p>\n
suspension period he is not to get anything beyond the subsistence<\/p>\n
allowance. It was also highlighted that on account of death of her<\/p>\n
mother on 6.1.2000 and death of her father on 16.11.2005 the wife has<\/p>\n
inherited movable and immovable property of her parents and has<\/p>\n
substantial amount of Rs.4.45 lakhs in fixed deposits and even larger<\/p>\n
amount in her bank accounts.\n<\/p>\n
13.         The pay slip of the husband for the month of March 2010<\/p>\n
is available on record through a supplementary affidavit filed by him<\/p>\n
in Miscellaneous Appeal No.370 of 2005 and it shows that after<\/p>\n
deducting Rs.2000 on account of GPF, Rs.2000\/- for income tax and<\/p>\n
Rs.120 for group insurance, his net monthly salary is Rs.40813\/-<\/p>\n
(Forty thousand eight hundred and thirteen). The court below has<\/p>\n
found that according to allegation made by the wife the husband had<\/p>\n
relationship with another lady since 1995 and allegedly during the<\/p>\n
pendency of the divorce proceeding, he entered into a second<\/p>\n
marriage and has an issue.       According to the husband, the said<\/p>\n
marriage was subsequent to decree of divorce. But it appears that the<\/p>\n
wife has not only succeeded in securing conviction of the husband in a<\/p>\n
case under Section 498A of the IPC from the trial court but has also<\/p>\n
lodged a criminal case under Section 494 and other Sections of the<\/p>\n
IPC in which cognizance has been taken by Sub Divisional Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate, Patna on 9.7.2007.\n<\/p>\n
                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
14.          An effort was made by this Court for making the parties<\/p>\n
agree to part amicably by agreeing for a reasonable and proper lump<\/p>\n
sum amount as alimony and not to pursue the criminal cases lodged<\/p>\n
by the wife. The wife insisted for the entire claim amount of Rs.30<\/p>\n
lakhs and the husband expressed inability in paying lump sum<\/p>\n
alimony beyond Rs.18 lakhs. Since the gap could not be bridged, the<\/p>\n
efforts for amicable settlement failed and hence, the matter now has to<\/p>\n
be decided on merits.\n<\/p>\n
15.          Considering the fact that husband is a Gazetted officer<\/p>\n
and drawing net salary around Rs.40,000\/-, we find that the amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/- per month cannot be reduced any further as pleaded on<\/p>\n
behalf of the husband. In fact, if this Court decides in favour of<\/p>\n
alimony by way of monthly payment then Rs.10,000 may need to be<\/p>\n
revised to Rs.14,000.\n<\/p>\n
16.          However, it has further been submitted on behalf of the<\/p>\n
husband that the direction to pay maintenance at the rate of<\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/- per month since 1.10.2000 is excessive and without<\/p>\n
considering that at that time, as per order of this Court his salary was<\/p>\n
around Rs.13,000\/- per month and, therefore, this Court had fixed<\/p>\n
interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000\/- per month only. Further<\/p>\n
submission is that the subsistence allowance was still lower between<\/p>\n
the period of suspension i.e. May 2003 to March 2007 and, therefore,<\/p>\n
while passing interim order on 4.8.2008, this Court directed, in the<\/p>\n
interest of justice, to pay permanent alimony at the rate of Rs.10,000\/-
\n                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
on or from 1.4.2007 i.e. only after revocation of suspension. Hence,<\/p>\n
it has been submitted that this Court should modify the order under<\/p>\n
appeal by reducing the maintenance amount from 1.10.2000 till<\/p>\n
March 2007 at the rate of Rs.4000\/- per month. On the other hand,<\/p>\n
the wife has submitted that existence of immovable property<\/p>\n
belonging to the husband was found by the court below and although<\/p>\n
income from that property could not be proved but every property<\/p>\n
must be deemed to have some notional income and hence, no<\/p>\n
interference should be made with the amount of maintenance even for<\/p>\n
the aforesaid period between 1\/10\/2000 and 31.3.2007, rather this<\/p>\n
Court should direct for payment of arrears for that period within a<\/p>\n
fixed period or else permit the execution proceeding in the court<\/p>\n
below to proceed.\n<\/p>\n
17.         On considering the earlier orders and the salary as well as<\/p>\n
subsistence allowance which the husband received prior to April<\/p>\n
2007, we find merit in the aforesaid submission advanced on behalf of<\/p>\n
the husband. Hence, for the purpose of arrears of maintenance only,<\/p>\n
the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000\/- per month is ordered to be<\/p>\n
reduced to Rs.4,000\/- per month for the period 1.10.2000 to<\/p>\n
31.3.2007. If on the basis of Rs.4,000\/- per month payable for that<\/p>\n
period any arrear is found due as per materials on record, the same<\/p>\n
should be paid by the husband to the wife within a period of three<\/p>\n
months from the date of this judgment failing which the same will be<\/p>\n
realizable through execution proceeding as per law.
\n                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
18.         Coming to the claim of the wife, it is to be decided<\/p>\n
whether the alimony and maintenance should be left at Rs.10000\/- per<\/p>\n
month or should be enhanced by way of monthly payment only or the<\/p>\n
claim of the wife for grant of a proper lump sum alimony be accepted.<\/p>\n
In that event, it would be necessary for this Court to find out what<\/p>\n
should be a reasonable and proper lump sum permanent alimony. In<\/p>\n
case, monthly alimony and maintenance is to be awarded then in our<\/p>\n
view, it should be Rs.14,000\/- per month for the present.<\/p>\n
19.         The learned court below has fixed Rs.10000\/- per month<\/p>\n
as alimony and maintenance in preference to one time lump sum<\/p>\n
payment on the ground that there is nothing on record to show that<\/p>\n
the husband is in possession of huge cash, bank balance or more than<\/p>\n
one residential house so as to arrange for one time payment. On the<\/p>\n
other hand, it has been submitted by wife that in paragraph 17 of the<\/p>\n
judgment under appeal the court below has taken note of existence of<\/p>\n
ancestral lands as well as sale deed in the name of the husband, a<\/p>\n
report of the Circle Officer to show at least 16 acres of land in the<\/p>\n
name of grandfather of the husband. According to her, the father of<\/p>\n
the husband also has a house and separate income as retired Labour<\/p>\n
Commissioner and there are enough exhibits to show that the husband<\/p>\n
has acquired a flat in the town of Patna. Thus, it has been submitted<\/p>\n
that from the materials available on record and from the offer of Rs.18<\/p>\n
lakhs made for compromise of all cases it is clear that the husband has<\/p>\n
necessary means to pay one time lump sum alimony. According to
\n                                     12<\/span><\/p>\n
the wife, the relations between the two parties have deteriorated so<\/p>\n
much that she will never get regular payment of monthly maintenance<\/p>\n
and she will always be forced to approach the court through execution<\/p>\n
proceeding and this shall adversely affect her entire future life. It has<\/p>\n
been submitted on her behalf that she is no doubt a Post graduate but<\/p>\n
is unemployed and now when her parents are no more, she needs<\/p>\n
financial security for the rest of her life so as to meet eventuality like<\/p>\n
illness, accident etc.<\/p>\n
20.           Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of<\/p>\n
the case and the submissions of the rival parties, we feel persuaded to<\/p>\n
accept the submission on behalf of the wife that in order to avoid<\/p>\n
further trauma to her and difficulties in getting monthly maintenance<\/p>\n
regularly in view of persisting bad relationship it will be in the interest<\/p>\n
of justice to award one time lump sum alimony. While the real value<\/p>\n
of a fixed amount of money payable is bound to decrease with passage<\/p>\n
of time, the salary of the husband is likely to increase in the coming<\/p>\n
years. Considering his salary income as well as materials to show his<\/p>\n
immovable property, in our view, a lump sum amount of Rs.14 lakhs<\/p>\n
would be just, appropriate and reasonable by way of lump sum<\/p>\n
permanent alimony. This amount shall be payable by the husband to<\/p>\n
the wife either in installments or in a lump sum within a period of nine<\/p>\n
months from today. However, 50 per cent of the said amount must be<\/p>\n
paid within a period of four months from today. The rest amount shall<\/p>\n
be payable within remaining period of five months. The liability to
\n                                            13<\/span><\/p>\n
     pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.10000\/- per month shall<\/p>\n
     continue till the entire amount of Rs.14 lakhs is paid to the wife.<\/p>\n
     21.              Although the effort for amicable settlement has failed but<\/p>\n
     before parting with this judgment we wish and hope for the wife to<\/p>\n
     agree for amicable settlement of all the pending litigations on the<\/p>\n
     terms offered and if that happens within a reasonable time, we grant<\/p>\n
     liberty to the parties to file a joint application for modification of this<\/p>\n
     order and for incorporating the terms of compromise in larger interest<\/p>\n
     of both the parties.\n<\/p>\n
     22.              Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. There shall<\/p>\n
     be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)<\/p>\n
           I agree.\n<\/p>\n
Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                             (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)<\/p>\n
     Patna High Court
\n     The 3rd September, 2010<\/p>\n
     S.Kumar
\n     NAFR\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Manoj Ambastha vs Smt.Lakshmy Rani Kapoor on 3 September, 2010 Author: Shiva Kirti Singh MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.370 OF 2005 Manoj Ambastha son of Shri A. K. Sinha at present resident of Mohalla- Anandpuri, P.S. S.K.Puri, Town and District Patna ….. Petitioner- Appellant VERSUS Smt. Lakshmy Rani Kapoor daughter of Prof. Brahma Deo […]<\/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":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29302","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManoj Ambastha vs Smt.Lakshmy Rani Kapoor on 3 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manoj Ambastha vs Smt.Lakshmy Rani Kapoor on 3 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-14T03:16:30+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manoj Ambastha vs Smt.Lakshmy Rani Kapoor on 3 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-14T03:16:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3112,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Manoj Ambastha vs Smt.Lakshmy Rani Kapoor on 3 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-14T03:16:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manoj Ambastha vs Smt.Lakshmy Rani Kapoor on 3 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Manoj Ambastha vs Smt.Lakshmy Rani Kapoor on 3 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manoj Ambastha vs Smt.Lakshmy Rani Kapoor on 3 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-14T03:16:30+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manoj Ambastha vs Smt.Lakshmy Rani Kapoor on 3 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-14T03:16:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010"},"wordCount":3112,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010","name":"Manoj Ambastha vs Smt.Lakshmy Rani Kapoor on 3 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-14T03:16:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-ambastha-vs-smt-lakshmy-rani-kapoor-on-3-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manoj Ambastha vs Smt.Lakshmy Rani Kapoor on 3 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29302","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=29302"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29302\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29302"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29302"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29302"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}