{"id":30683,"date":"2007-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007"},"modified":"2018-05-24T10:34:21","modified_gmt":"2018-05-24T05:04:21","slug":"meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"Meenakshi vs Udayakumar on 27 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Meenakshi vs Udayakumar on 27 September, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl Rev Pet No. 1433 of 2007()\n\n\n1. MEENAKSHI, D\/O KUTTY,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. UDAYAKUMAR, S\/O VISWAMBARAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SREEKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\n\n Dated :27\/09\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                        V. RAMKUMAR, J.                               'C.R.'\n\n               ````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n                    Crl. R.P. No. 1433 OF 2007 D\n               ````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n             Dated this the 27th day of September, 2007\n\n                                 O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
            The revision petitioner, who is the complainant in<\/p>\n
S.T.No.143\/06 on the file of JFCM-II, Haripad, challenges the<\/p>\n
order dated 5.2.07 passed by the said Magistrate returning the<\/p>\n
complaint presumably under section 201 Cr.P.C. for presenting a<\/p>\n
same before the proper court having jurisdiction within two weeks.<\/p>\n
      2.    The above private complaint was filed against the first<\/p>\n
respondent accused alleging the commission of an offence<\/p>\n
punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in<\/p>\n
respect of a cheque bearing No.509004 drawn on the Pallickal<\/p>\n
Branch of the State Bank of India for a sum of Rs.1,00,000\/-<\/p>\n
allegedly issued by the accused to discharge his liability towards a<\/p>\n
loan said to have been availed by him from the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner\/complainant.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence<\/p>\n
and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and took the<\/p>\n
case on file as S.T.No.143\/2006. On receipt of summons, the<\/p>\n
accused entered appearance. The trial of the case was later on<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1433\/07
\n                                   : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
commenced. After the evidence in the case was over, the accused<\/p>\n
was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and the case was posted<\/p>\n
for arguments when the first respondent accused, for the first time,<\/p>\n
raised a contention that the said Magistrate lacks territorial<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint since the place where<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner complainant is residing and the place where<\/p>\n
the cheque was presented and the place where the accused is<\/p>\n
residing are not within the local limits of the JFCM-II, Haripad. The<\/p>\n
objection regarding jurisdiction was raised on the basis that merely<\/p>\n
because the place of issuance of notice to the accused was within<\/p>\n
the local limits of the Haripad court would not clothe that court to<\/p>\n
entertain and try the case. Admittedly, the statutory notice was<\/p>\n
issued from a place within the local limits of the jurisdiction the<\/p>\n
JFCM-II, Haripad.\n<\/p>\n
      4.     The learned Magistrate relying on the decision<\/p>\n
reported in Ahammedkutty Haji Vs. State of Kerala [2007 (1)<\/p>\n
KLT 638] and Hariharaputhra Sharma Vs. State of Kerala [2003<\/p>\n
(8) KLT 875] took the view that the decision of the Apex court in<\/p>\n
K.Bhaskaran Vs. Sakaran Vaidhyan Balan and another [1999<\/p>\n
(7) SCC 510] had been distinguished in the later decisions of this<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1433\/07
\n                                   : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
court and accordingly came to the conclusion that since both the<\/p>\n
accused as well as the complainant are residing outside the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the court below and the cheque was presented as<\/p>\n
well as dishonoured at places outside the local limits of the court<\/p>\n
below and the drawee bank was also located beyond the limits of<\/p>\n
the court below, that court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain<\/p>\n
the complaint merely because the lawyer who issued the statutory<\/p>\n
notice had his office at Haripad within the local limits of the court<\/p>\n
below. Accordingly, the complaint was returned with a direction to<\/p>\n
present it before the proper court having jurisdiction. It is the said<\/p>\n
order which is assailed by the revision petitioner.<\/p>\n
      5.     Eventhough the first respondent accused was duly<\/p>\n
served, he has not chosen to enter appearance or oppose this<\/p>\n
revision.\n<\/p>\n
      6.     First of all, going by the decision of the Apex court in<\/p>\n
Bhaskaran’s case, if the giving of notice in writing to the drawer<\/p>\n
of the cheque demanding payment took place within the local<\/p>\n
limits of the jurisdiction of the court when the complaint was filed,<\/p>\n
then that court can entertain and try the complaint.              Even<\/p>\n
assuming that the court below did not possess the territorial<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1433\/07
\n                                   : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for the reasons stated by that<\/p>\n
court, it is pertinent to note that the objection regarding territorial<\/p>\n
jurisdiction was raised only at the fag end of the trial and that too<\/p>\n
for the first time when the arguments were heard. Eventhough<\/p>\n
there is no provision in Cr.P.C. analogous to one contained in<\/p>\n
section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the preponderance of<\/p>\n
judicial opinion is to the effect that if an objection regarding<\/p>\n
territorial jurisdiction has not been raised at the earliest<\/p>\n
opportunity, then it will not be entertained by the court.        The<\/p>\n
position is almost analogous to what is obtained under section 21<\/p>\n
C.P.C.     In Ramanujan Nair Vs. Sarojini [1970 KLT 645] the<\/p>\n
question arose before the trial court as to whether it had territorial<\/p>\n
jurisdiction under section 177 Cr.P.C. to entertain the complaint.<\/p>\n
The objection regarding jurisdiction was raised only at the fag end<\/p>\n
of the trial. The accused did not raise the objection regarding<\/p>\n
want of territorial jurisdiction until the entire prosecution evidence<\/p>\n
was over.      This is what the Division Bench observed in that<\/p>\n
decision:-\n<\/p>\n
                   “4.   S.177 of the Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
             Procedure provides that every offence shall<\/p>\n
             ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1433\/07
\n                                      : 5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
             within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the<\/p>\n
             offence was committed. The contention now is<\/p>\n
             that the second marriage, the offence in the<\/p>\n
             present case, was committed within the local<\/p>\n
             limits of the Quilon court and since the complaint<\/p>\n
             was filed in the Trivandrum court, the latter court<\/p>\n
             has no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence.<\/p>\n
             The Supreme Court has said in Narumal’s case<\/p>\n
             that the word ‘ordinarily’ in S.177 of the Code of<\/p>\n
             Criminal    Procedure      means   “except   where<\/p>\n
             provided otherwise in the Code”. From this it is<\/p>\n
             contended by the counsel of the petitioner that<\/p>\n
             since there is no other provision contra in the<\/p>\n
             Code or even in any other law the proper court<\/p>\n
             having jurisdiction to try the case is the court<\/p>\n
             which should ordinarily try the case, namely, the<\/p>\n
             court at Quilon. In the other decision of the<\/p>\n
             Supreme Court the salutary principle behind<\/p>\n
             S.177 is pointed out. The Supreme Court has<\/p>\n
             pointed out that the jurisdiction of courts for trial<\/p>\n
             of offences is of two kinds, one regarding the<\/p>\n
             power of the courts to try particular kinds of<\/p>\n
             offences and the other what is called territorial<\/p>\n
             jurisdiction.    The Supreme Court has also<\/p>\n
             pointed out that the former type of jurisdiction<\/p>\n
             goes to the root of the matter, and if a court not<\/p>\n
             empowered to try a particular offence does try it,<\/p>\n
             the entire trial is void, and that such importance<\/p>\n
             is not attached to lack of territorial jurisdiction.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             The Supreme Court has pointed out further that<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1433\/07
\n                                       : 6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
             territorial jurisdiction is “a matter of convenience,<\/p>\n
             keeping in mind the administrative point of view<\/p>\n
             with respect to the work of a particular court, the<\/p>\n
             convenience of the accused who will have to<\/p>\n
             meet the charge levelled against him and the<\/p>\n
             convenience of the witnesses who have to<\/p>\n
             appear before the court”.        Thus the Supreme<\/p>\n
             Court has pointed out, S.177 lays down a rule<\/p>\n
             which does not go to the root of the matter and<\/p>\n
             which does not make the trial by a court having<\/p>\n
             no territorial jurisdiction a nullity. It is not as if<\/p>\n
             the Additional First Class Magistrate’s Court at<\/p>\n
             Trivandrum is lacking in jurisdiction to try a case<\/p>\n
             under S.494 of the Penal Code: the lack of<\/p>\n
             jurisdiction is only because the alleged second<\/p>\n
             marriage is said to have taken place outside its<\/p>\n
             territorial jurisdiction.      In other words, the<\/p>\n
             Trivandrum court has no lack of inherent<\/p>\n
             jurisdiction to try an offence of the kind, but its<\/p>\n
             lack of jurisdiction is only lack of territorial<\/p>\n
             jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
                    5. In the special circumstances we have<\/p>\n
             already pointed out at the commencement of<\/p>\n
             this judgment, namely, that the petitioner did not<\/p>\n
             take the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction<\/p>\n
             until the entire prosecution evidence was over<\/p>\n
             and even until four of the five accused persons<\/p>\n
             were discharged, we feel that this case may be<\/p>\n
             taken out of the expression “ordinarily” in S.177<\/p>\n
             of the Code of Criminal Procedure.               The<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1433\/07
\n                                     : 7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
             petitioner has not even alleged that he is<\/p>\n
             prejudiced by the trial being continued before<\/p>\n
             the   court    at    Trivandrum:    in  fact, the<\/p>\n
             circumstances pointed out at the bar indicate<\/p>\n
             that the trial of the case in the Trivandrum court<\/p>\n
             might probably be more convenient to the<\/p>\n
             petitioner.”\n<\/p>\n
      7.     The court below was not justified in entertaining the<\/p>\n
objection regarding territorial jurisdiction at the belated stage as<\/p>\n
aforesaid especially when no prejudice was pleaded or proved.<\/p>\n
The impugned order dated 5.2.07 is accordingly set aside and<\/p>\n
JFCM-II, Haripad is directed to proceed with S.T.No.143\/06 and<\/p>\n
dispose it of in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
      This revision is allowed as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                (V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
\naks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Meenakshi vs Udayakumar on 27 September, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl Rev Pet No. 1433 of 2007() 1. MEENAKSHI, D\/O KUTTY, … Petitioner Vs 1. UDAYAKUMAR, S\/O VISWAMBARAN, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE For Petitioner :SRI.P.SREEKUMAR For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30683","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMeenakshi vs Udayakumar on 27 September, 2007 - 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\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Meenakshi vs Udayakumar on 27 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-24T05:04:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Meenakshi vs Udayakumar on 27 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-24T05:04:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1412,\"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\\\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007\",\"name\":\"Meenakshi vs Udayakumar on 27 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-24T05:04:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Meenakshi vs Udayakumar on 27 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Meenakshi vs Udayakumar on 27 September, 2007 - 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\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Meenakshi vs Udayakumar on 27 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-24T05:04:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Meenakshi vs Udayakumar on 27 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-24T05:04:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007"},"wordCount":1412,"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\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007","name":"Meenakshi vs Udayakumar on 27 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-24T05:04:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenakshi-vs-udayakumar-on-27-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Meenakshi vs Udayakumar on 27 September, 2007"}]},{"@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\/30683","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=30683"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30683\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30683"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30683"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30683"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}