{"id":33125,"date":"2008-10-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008"},"modified":"2019-01-17T22:38:36","modified_gmt":"2019-01-17T17:08:36","slug":"anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Anumon vs Kichen Alias Radhakrishnan on 22 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Anumon vs Kichen Alias Radhakrishnan on 22 October, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRPFC.No. 60 of 2004()\n\n\n1. ANUMON, 6 YEARS (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KICHEN ALIAS RADHAKRISHNAN, STATE BANK\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :22\/10\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                           R. BASANT, J.\n            -------------------------------------------------\n                   R.P.(FC) No. 60 of 2004\n            -------------------------------------------------\n         Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2008\n\n                               ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
     This R.P.(FC) is filed by the claimant – an illegitimate<\/p>\n
child, born to a unwed mother who was in her teens when she<\/p>\n
was impregnated. The respondent\/herein is a neighbour – a<\/p>\n
married man with children. He was employed as a sweeper in<\/p>\n
the State Bank of Travancore, Treasury Branch, Kottayam,<\/p>\n
allegedly earning Rs.3,500\/- per month.            It was alleged that<\/p>\n
the hapless mother         of the claimant was raped by the<\/p>\n
respondent and in such relationship the claimant\/child was<\/p>\n
born.   For the said alleged act of rape, the respondent has<\/p>\n
already been convicted by a criminal court and he is now<\/p>\n
undergoing imprisonment in that case, it is submitted and<\/p>\n
conceded. The respondent had denied the said allegation of<\/p>\n
rape and paternity.      On the side of the claimant\/child, two<\/p>\n
witnesses, including its mother, were examined as P.Ws.1 and<\/p>\n
R.P.(FC) No. 60 of 2004 -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
2. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the claimant. The<\/p>\n
respondent examined himself as R.W.1.         There was no other<\/p>\n
evidence adduced.      It is relevant to observe that though the<\/p>\n
claimant offered to undergo DNA test, the respondent adamantly<\/p>\n
refused to undergo such test.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on an anxious<\/p>\n
consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion<\/p>\n
that it was safe to place reliance on the evidence tendered by the<\/p>\n
claimant to come to the conclusion that the respondent is the<\/p>\n
father of the claimant\/minor child.      Accordingly, the learned<\/p>\n
Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order.<\/p>\n
      3.  The respondent has not chosen to challenge the order.<\/p>\n
No revision has been preferred against the finding that he is the<\/p>\n
father of the claimant. The claimant\/child has come before this<\/p>\n
Court through her grandmother to assail the quantum fixed as<\/p>\n
also the direction that maintenance is liable to be paid only from<\/p>\n
the date of the order and not from the date of the petition. The<\/p>\n
claimant is represented by her grandmother. When the claim<\/p>\n
was filed, the mother of the claimant was a minor.<\/p>\n
      4. Only two questions arise for consideration now.     They<\/p>\n
are:   (1) Does the quantum of maintenance awarded deserve<\/p>\n
upward modification?         (2)    Whether the direction that<\/p>\n
R.P.(FC) No. 60 of 2004 -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
maintenance need be paid only from the date of the order<\/p>\n
warrants revisional interference?\n<\/p>\n
     5.   The petition was filed in 1998.     The order was passed<\/p>\n
only in 2003.      There is no contention whatsoever that any<\/p>\n
amount had been paid during the pendency of the proceedings<\/p>\n
towards maintenance. During the relevant period, undisputedly<\/p>\n
the respondent was employed as sweeper in the State Bank of<\/p>\n
Travancore, Treasury Branch, Kottayam.           He had     a stable<\/p>\n
employment and income. Of course, the materials show that his<\/p>\n
wife and two children also had to be maintained. The materials<\/p>\n
presently available further show that the respondent is<\/p>\n
undergoing imprisonment in prison.         Taking all the relevant<\/p>\n
circumstances into account, I am of opinion that the quantum of<\/p>\n
maintenance need not be enhanced now.          But I clarify that the<\/p>\n
quantum of maintenance must be reckoned as fixed on the basis<\/p>\n
of the state of affairs prevailing in 1998 – the date of the claim. I<\/p>\n
do further observe that as soon as the respondent comes out of<\/p>\n
prison, the petitioner\/claimant child shall be at liberty to claim<\/p>\n
enhancement of maintenance which claim must be considered on<\/p>\n
merits and on the basis of the evidence that shall be placed<\/p>\n
before court by the Family Court and appropriate decision taken.<\/p>\n
     6.     That leaves me with the contention that the<\/p>\n
R.P.(FC) No. 60 of 2004 -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
maintenance must have been ordered from the date of the<\/p>\n
petition and not from the date of the order.       On this aspect,<\/p>\n
Sec.125(2) Cr.P.C. is relevant. I extract the same below:<\/p>\n
                “125.    Order for maintenance of<\/p>\n
          wives, children and parents.– (1)<\/p>\n
                           x x x x x x x<\/p>\n
                (2) Any such allowance for the<\/p>\n
          maintenance or interim maintenance and<\/p>\n
          expenses for proceeding shall be payable<\/p>\n
          from the date of the order, or, if so ordered,<\/p>\n
          from the date of the application for<\/p>\n
          maintenance or interim maintenance and<\/p>\n
          expenses of proceeding, as the case may<\/p>\n
          be.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                 (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      7. The order is to take effect from the date of the order or<\/p>\n
if so ordered from the date of the application for maintenance.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The question is whether the Family Court ought to have ordered<\/p>\n
maintenance from the date of the petition.      The law confers a<\/p>\n
discretion on the court to direct payment of maintenance under<\/p>\n
Sec.125 Cr.P.C. either from the date of the order or from the<\/p>\n
date of the petition.   All discretions conferred on courts must<\/p>\n
be exercised judicially and judiciously taking note of all the<\/p>\n
relevant circumstances.      In a case where the liability is<\/p>\n
established and there is no contention that any amount has been<\/p>\n
R.P.(FC) No. 60 of 2004 -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
paid during the pendency of the proceedings, I find no reason<\/p>\n
why such direction for payment should not take effect from the<\/p>\n
date of the petition unless satisfactory reasons are there. Where<\/p>\n
liability to pay maintenance is proved or undisputed and no<\/p>\n
payment is made towards such liability during the pendency of<\/p>\n
the proceedings, every court worth its salt exercising the<\/p>\n
discretion must exercise such discretion in favour of the claimant<\/p>\n
unless there be satisfactory reasons in the facts of a given case<\/p>\n
to deny such maintenance from the date of the petition.         No<\/p>\n
such circumstances are shown to exist in this case. Admittedly,<\/p>\n
the respondent was having stable employment and income<\/p>\n
during the relevant period.     That he has not paid the amount<\/p>\n
promptly cannot deliver any advantage to him.     If the discretion<\/p>\n
is not exercised in favour of the claimant, there is always the<\/p>\n
possibility of recalcitrant respondents attempting to prolong and<\/p>\n
protract the proceedings and thereby attempting to gain<\/p>\n
pecuniary advantage.       The petition has been pending for an<\/p>\n
inordinately long period of 5 years before the Family Court. In<\/p>\n
any view of the matter, I am satisfied that there is no justifiable<\/p>\n
ground to exercise the discretion against the claimant and in<\/p>\n
favour of the respondent.      I am satisfied that the gross error<\/p>\n
committed in the exercise of discretion by the Family Court<\/p>\n
R.P.(FC) No. 60 of 2004 -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
which definitely has resulted in miscarriage of justice deserves<\/p>\n
to be corrected by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of<\/p>\n
superintendence and correction.\n<\/p>\n
    8. In the result:\n<\/p>\n
    (a) This RP(FC) is allowed in part.\n<\/p>\n
    (b) It is directed that the maintenance under the impugned<\/p>\n
order is liable to be paid from the date of the petition (17\/10\/97)<\/p>\n
and not from the date of the order.\n<\/p>\n
    (c) It is observed that the amount of maintenance must be<\/p>\n
deemed to have been fixed on the basis of the state of events on<\/p>\n
the date of the petition and the claimant shall be entitled to<\/p>\n
claim enhancement of maintenance as soon as the respondent<\/p>\n
comes out of prison which claim will again have to be considered<\/p>\n
on the basis of the pleadings and evidence in such claim and<\/p>\n
appropriate orders passed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                   Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                       (R. BASANT, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
Nan\/<\/p>\n
                 \/\/true copy\/\/<\/p>\n
                                      P.S. to Judge<\/p>\n
R.P.(FC) No. 60 of 2004 -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Anumon vs Kichen Alias Radhakrishnan on 22 October, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RPFC.No. 60 of 2004() 1. ANUMON, 6 YEARS (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY … Petitioner Vs 1. KICHEN ALIAS RADHAKRISHNAN, STATE BANK … Respondent For Petitioner :SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI For Respondent :SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP The Hon’ble MR. Justice R.BASANT […]<\/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-33125","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnumon vs Kichen Alias Radhakrishnan on 22 October, 2008 - 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\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anumon vs Kichen Alias Radhakrishnan on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-17T17:08:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anumon vs Kichen Alias Radhakrishnan on 22 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-17T17:08:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1210,\"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\\\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Anumon vs Kichen Alias Radhakrishnan on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-17T17:08:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anumon vs Kichen Alias Radhakrishnan on 22 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Anumon vs Kichen Alias Radhakrishnan on 22 October, 2008 - 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\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anumon vs Kichen Alias Radhakrishnan on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-17T17:08:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anumon vs Kichen Alias Radhakrishnan on 22 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-17T17:08:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008"},"wordCount":1210,"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\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008","name":"Anumon vs Kichen Alias Radhakrishnan on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-17T17:08:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anumon-vs-kichen-alias-radhakrishnan-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anumon vs Kichen Alias Radhakrishnan on 22 October, 2008"}]},{"@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\/33125","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=33125"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33125\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33125"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33125"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33125"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}