{"id":30543,"date":"1992-04-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1992-03-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992"},"modified":"2016-01-06T15:32:40","modified_gmt":"2016-01-06T10:02:40","slug":"prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992","title":{"rendered":"Prasadh Kumar vs Ravindran on 1 April, 1992"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Prasadh Kumar vs Ravindran on 1 April, 1992<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1992 CriLJ 3203, II (1992) DMC 162<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Krishnamoorthy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: J Rao, Krishnamoorthy<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>Krishnamoorthy, J.<\/p>\n<p>1. In both these Original Petitions a common<br \/>\nquestion arises and accordingly they are disposed of by a common judgment.<br \/>\nThe question involved in O.P. No. 3771 of 1992 is as to whether the<br \/>\npetitioner is entitled to maintain a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas<br \/>\ncorpus for the production of a girl, Deepa Ravindran, who is the daughter of<br \/>\nthe 1st respondent. The further question to be decided is as to whether the<br \/>\ncustody of a parent in the circumstances can be said to be unlawful, warranting<br \/>\ninterference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Petitioner alleges in his petition that himself and Deepa Ravindran<br \/>\nwere neighbours and that they have been in love for long eversince their childhood.<br \/>\nThe parents and other relatives were not agreeable to their relationship<br \/>\nand on 11-3-1992, petitioner and Deepa eloped from their respective houses and<br \/>\nwere staying with the petitioner&#8217;s mother&#8217;s sister&#8217;s daughter at a place called<br \/>\nNarakathodu. It is further alleged in the petition that they entered into a registered marriage agreement (No. 42\/82) dated 12-3-1992 before the<br \/>\nSub- Registrar&#8217;s Office, Thengana; a copy of the above agreement is produced as Ext. PI.<br \/>\nAccording to the petitioner, they became husband and wife by execution of<br \/>\nthat registered document and they were residing as such in his sister&#8217;s house at<br \/>\nNarakathodu. While so, on 16-3-1992, father of Deepa and two other persons<br \/>\nrepresented to them that they will conduct a formal marriage between the petitioner and Deepa and on that pretext took Deepa also along with them, who is<br \/>\nnow residing with her parents. According to the petitioner, the representation<br \/>\nmade by the 1st respondent was only a ruse to take Deepa Ravindran out of<br \/>\nthe custody of the petitioner and she is kept in illegal custody against her wish<br \/>\nby the respondents. The 1st respondent is the father of Deepa and the 2nd respondent is his sister&#8217;s son.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. Petitioner alleges that intention of the respondents was to separate<br \/>\nDeepa from him and she is kept in illegal custody against her wish. It is also<br \/>\nalleged by him that she is a major and is capable of expressing her free will.<br \/>\nAccording to him, it is against her will and desire that the respondents have<br \/>\nbeen illegally detaining her. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this<br \/>\npetition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the body of Deepa Ravindram, wife of the petitioner, in<br \/>\nCourt and order her release.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. The first question to be decided is as to whether a petition for the<br \/>\nissuance of a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable at the instance of the<br \/>\nPetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>Petitioner throughout in the petition maintains that he is the husband of<br \/>\nthe girl Deepa, on the basis of a registered document executed by the petitioner<br \/>\nand Deepa on 12-3-1992 before the Sub Register&#8217;s Office, Thengana. Both parties<br \/>\nare Hindus and it is well-settled that in order to claim the status of a husband,<br \/>\nthey should have undergone a form of marriage prescribed under law. Executing a registered document and declaring that they are husband and wife will not<br \/>\nconfer the status of a husband on the petitioner because it is not one of the<br \/>\nrecognised forms of marriage in law. There is no case for the petitioner that<br \/>\nhe had married Deepa in the customary form. In these circumstances, we<br \/>\nhave to proceed on the basis that the petitioner is not the husband of<br \/>\nDeepa.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. The question involved in the case is regarding the custody of a girl,<br \/>\nthough, no doubt, according to the petitioner, she is a major. Even assuming<br \/>\nthat she is a major, the question is whether in such circumstances, the petitioner<br \/>\nis entitled to maintain an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for<br \/>\nthe production of her body and also as to whether the custody of the father in<br \/>\nsuch circumstances can be said to be unlawful. We do not think that having<br \/>\ncontrol and supervision of an aged girl by the parents will amount to illegal<br \/>\ncustody warranting the issue of a writ by this Court. Parents will naturally be<br \/>\ninterested in the welfare of their children and unless there are extraordinary<br \/>\ncircumstances, normally they will be the proper persons to take decisions concerning the career and future of their children. Parents will be entitled to have<br \/>\ncontrol over the children, especially if they are daughters, to protect them from<br \/>\nthe vagaries of adolescence.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. Petitioner claims to be the husband of only on the basis of the<br \/>\nregistered document which will not confer on him the status of a husband. A.<br \/>\nperson like the petitioner is not entitled to maintain a petition for the issue of a<br \/>\nwrit of habeas corpus for the release of a girl, especially when she is only in the<br \/>\ncustody of the father. In Mohd. Ikram Hussainv. State of U.P., (AIR 1964<br \/>\nS.C. 1625), the Supreme Court has laid down the principles applicable in such<br \/>\ncircumstances. The Supreme Court observed ;\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;A writ of habeas corpus at the instance of a man to obtain<br \/>\npossession of a woman alleged to be his wife does not issue as a<br \/>\nmatter of course. Though a writ of right, it is not a writ<br \/>\nof course especially when a man seeks the. assistance of the<br \/>\nCourt to regain the custody of a woman. Before a Court accedes<br \/>\nto this request it must satisfy itself at least prima facie that the person claiming the writ is in fact the husband and further whether<br \/>\nvalid marriage between him and the woman could at all have taken<br \/>\nplace.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>As stated earlier, no valid marriage has taken place between the petitioner and Deepa and following the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the<br \/>\naforementioned case, it has to be held that no petition will lie at the instance<br \/>\nof a person like the petitioner. The same view was taken by a full Bench of<br \/>\nthis Court in Sadanandan v. Raghava Kurup, (1974 a KLT 750). That apart,<br \/>\nDeepa is staying with her own parents and except the allegation made in the<br \/>\npetition nothing has been made out to show that she is under any restraint or<br \/>\nis being illegally detained by the parents. In the light of what is stated above,<br \/>\npetitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. Counsel for the petitioner placed great reliance on the decision of<br \/>\nof the Supreme Court in Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi<br \/>\n&amp; Others, (1976) 3 SCC 234 and also on the Division Bench decision of this<br \/>\nCourt in Krishna Baj v. State of Kerala, ILR 1980 (1) Ker. In Gian Devi&#8217;s case<br \/>\nthe petition was filed by the woman herself when she was ordered to be detained<br \/>\nin Nari Niketan, Delhi, by the Judicial Magistrate. It was in that context that<br \/>\nthe Supreme Court said that no fetters can be placed upon her choice of the<br \/>\nperson with whom she is to stay. In the latter decision, the question as to whether such a petition is maintainable by a person other than the husband was not<br \/>\nconsidered at all, as no such contention was taken in the case, as seen from<br \/>\npara 37 of that judgment to the following effect :\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;37. Incidentally, we may record that Counsel for the 4th<br \/>\nrespondent did not contend for the position that without a finding<br \/>\non the alleged marriage between the petitioner and Prabha, no writ<br \/>\ncould issue. He fairly conceded that the present case can be treated<br \/>\nas an application by &#8220;some other person&#8221; within the meaning of the<br \/>\nproviso to Rule 160.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus, these two decisions can have no application to the facts of this<br \/>\ncase.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. In O.P. No. 2745 of 1992, the petitioner is a Hindu belonging to the<br \/>\nScheduled Caste community and according to him, he fell in love with the 5th<br \/>\nrespondent who belonged to the Muslim community. He alleged that she was<br \/>\n21 years old and on 2-2-92, the 5th respondent on her own will left her family<br \/>\nand accompanied him to his house for living as husband and wife. On 3-2-92<br \/>\nthe petitioner and the 5th respondent contracted a register marriage at the Sub<br \/>\nRegistry, Sreemoolanagaram in Ernakulam District; a copy of the marriage<br \/>\ncontract is produced as Ext.Pl. According to the petitioner, on<br \/>\n8-8-1992, a police jeep came to his house and three police men of the Chengamanadu<br \/>\nPolice Station arrested the petitioner, his wife and his mother and took them<br \/>\nto the said Police Station. Though the petitioner stated that the petitioner and<br \/>\nthe 5th respondent are married, they took away the 5th respondent from his<br \/>\ncustody and her whereabouts are not known to him. Petitioner alleges that he<br \/>\nhas not seen her. thereafter. According to him, the 5th respondent is detained<br \/>\nagainst her wish and will by the 6th respondent, her father, and she is not able<br \/>\nto communicate with the outside world. In these circumstances, he prays for a<br \/>\nwrit of habeas corpus commanding respondents 2, 3 and 4 to produce the 5th<br \/>\nrespondent before Court and to release her from the illegal confinement made<br \/>\nby the father, the 6th respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. The 6th respondent, father of the 5th respondent, has filed a counter-affidavit in which he has alleged that she is his youngest daughter and that<br \/>\nshe is a minor. In support of the fact that she is a minor, he has<br \/>\nproduced as Ext. R6(B) the relevant pages of the ration card issued<br \/>\nduring 1985-86 which shows her age. So also, the new ration card for<br \/>\nthe year 1991 (the relevant pages produced as Ext. R6(C)) also shows her<br \/>\nage as 12. He denied the fact that the 5th respondent is a major. According to<br \/>\nhim, the 5th respondent was found missing and a complaint was launched by<br \/>\nhis son before the Vellamunda Police Station. On the basis of the investigation,<br \/>\nthey traced the 5th respondent from the house of the petitioner. Later, the 5th<br \/>\nrespondent was produced before the Magistrate, Mananthavady and she expressed her desire to go with her parents and the Court permitted her to do so.<br \/>\nAccording to him, she is living with them on her own free will and she is not<br \/>\nin illegal confinement.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. We got down the records of the police case initiated on the basis<br \/>\nof the complaint made by the 6th respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. In this case also it can be seen that the petitioner is claiming to<br \/>\nbe the husband of the 5th respondent (Nabeesa) only on the basis of a registered document dated 3-2-92 produced as Ext. PI. There cannot be any doubt<br \/>\nthat the petitioner cannot become the husband of the 5th respondent by this<br \/>\nregistered document alone. Petitioner has not alleged that he has married the<br \/>\n5th respondent in any legal manner. In that view of the matter, for the reasons<br \/>\nwe have already stated, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. There are other reasons also for refusing the relief claimed by the<br \/>\npetitioner. First of all, the 6th respondent has clearly alleged in the counter<br \/>\naffidavit that the 5th respondent is a minor, prima facie, the ration card for<br \/>\n1985-86 shows that she was only 7 years old at that time. Ext. R6(C) the ration<br \/>\ncard for the year 1991 shows her age as 12. Petitioner contended that in the<br \/>\nregistered document Ext. PI her age is shown as 21.The age in the ration card<br \/>\nwould have been supplied by the parents who are competent to mention the<br \/>\nage of the 5th respondent and it has to be remembered that it was at a time<br \/>\nwhen there was no dispute regarding her age. There is no reason why the 6th<br \/>\nrespondent should give a false age of Nabeesa for obtaining a ration card so<br \/>\nthat prima facie the age given in the ration card has to be accepted for the<br \/>\npurpose of this case at least, Petitioner has not satisfactorily proved that the<br \/>\n5th respondent is a major. In that view of the matter also the petitioner is not<br \/>\nentitled to any relief.\n<\/p>\n<p>13. Moreover, on the basis of the cumplaint made by the 6th respondent, the police took custody of the 5th respondent and produced her before<br \/>\nthe Magistrate, Mananthavady. The Magistrate questioned her and she had<br \/>\nclearly stated before him that she wants go along with her parents who were<br \/>\nwaiting outside in the verandah. She clearly expressed her desire to go wtih<br \/>\nthe parents and accordingly the Magistrate ordered that she is given liberty to<br \/>\ngo with her parents. Accordingly she joined her parents and is now staying with<br \/>\nthem. It can thus be seen that when she was questioned by the Magistrate, she<br \/>\nhad categorically stated that she desired to go with her parents which clearly<br \/>\nshows that there is nothing to show any sort of illegal confinement by the<br \/>\nparents or that she is being kept against her wishes. We are satisfied from the<br \/>\nstatement recorded by the Magistrate that she is staying with her parents on<br \/>\nher own will and there is no illegal confinement is alleged by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>14. In the light of what is stated above,there is no merit in these two<br \/>\nOriginal Petitions and they are accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Prasadh Kumar vs Ravindran on 1 April, 1992 Equivalent citations: 1992 CriLJ 3203, II (1992) DMC 162 Author: Krishnamoorthy Bench: J Rao, Krishnamoorthy JUDGMENT Krishnamoorthy, J. 1. In both these Original Petitions a common question arises and accordingly they are disposed of by a common judgment. The question involved in O.P. No. [&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-30543","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>Prasadh Kumar vs Ravindran on 1 April, 1992 - 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\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prasadh Kumar vs Ravindran on 1 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992\" \/>\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=\"1992-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-06T10:02:40+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prasadh Kumar vs Ravindran on 1 April, 1992\",\"datePublished\":\"1992-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-06T10:02:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992\"},\"wordCount\":2241,\"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\\\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992\",\"name\":\"Prasadh Kumar vs Ravindran on 1 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1992-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-06T10:02:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prasadh Kumar vs Ravindran on 1 April, 1992\"}]},{\"@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":"Prasadh Kumar vs Ravindran on 1 April, 1992 - 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\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prasadh Kumar vs Ravindran on 1 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1992-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-06T10:02:40+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prasadh Kumar vs Ravindran on 1 April, 1992","datePublished":"1992-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-06T10:02:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992"},"wordCount":2241,"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\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992","name":"Prasadh Kumar vs Ravindran on 1 April, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1992-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-06T10:02:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasadh-kumar-vs-ravindran-on-1-april-1992#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prasadh Kumar vs Ravindran on 1 April, 1992"}]},{"@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\/30543","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=30543"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30543\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30543"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30543"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30543"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}