{"id":35164,"date":"2009-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009"},"modified":"2019-01-13T03:09:47","modified_gmt":"2019-01-12T21:39:47","slug":"mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mayaram Nishad vs Jamuna Bai on 9 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Mayaram Nishad vs Jamuna Bai on 9 April, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n         HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR        \n\n\n\n\n\n\n             Criminal Revision No 681 of 2006\n\n\n\n\n                 Mayaram   Nishad\n                                 ...Petitioners\n\n                    versus\n\n\n                 Jamuna  Bai\n                               ...Respondents\n\n\n\n!               Shri K. A. Ansari, learned Senior Advocate with Shri\n                Ankoash Mishra, counsel for the Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n^               Shri P.P.Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent\n\n\n               Honble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J\n\n\n\n\n               Dated: 09\/04\/2009\n\n\n\n\n:               Judgment\n\n\n\n\n  CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397\/401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE                  \n\n                       O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
        (Passed on this 9th day of April, 2009)<\/p>\n
      This  Criminal Revision by the petitioner\/husband<\/p>\n
is  directed against the order dated 13.10.2006  passed<\/p>\n
in  Criminal  Revision No. 194\/2005 by  the  Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions  Judge, Bemetara, District Durg whereby  in  a<\/p>\n
revision preferred by the respondent\/wife while setting<\/p>\n
aside  the  dismissal of the application under  Section<\/p>\n
125  Cr.P.C.  of  the  respondent\/wife  herein  by  the<\/p>\n
Judicial   Magistrate   First   Class,   Bemetara    in<\/p>\n
Miscellaneous   Criminal   Case   No.    1\/2004,    the<\/p>\n
petitioner\/husband   herein   was   ordered   to    pay<\/p>\n
maintenance  of  Rs.1000\/- per month to the  respondent<\/p>\n
herein from the date of application.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.        Admittedly,     marriage     between      the\n\npetitioner\/husband   and   the   respondent\/wife    was\n\n<\/pre>\n
solemnized in the year 1982.  Gauna ceremony took place <\/p>\n
in  1983 and out of their marital wedlock, a son namely<\/p>\n
Tukeshwar was born in 1984.  It is also not in  dispute<\/p>\n
that since the year 1985, the respondent\/wife is living<\/p>\n
separately   in   her   maternal   home   in    village<\/p>\n
Kongiyakhurd.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.    For the first time, the respondent\/wife filed  an<\/p>\n
application  under  Section  125  of  the  Cr.P.C.   on<\/p>\n
23.10.2003 on the averment that a year after  birth  of<\/p>\n
Tukeshwar, the petitioner\/husband started harassing her<\/p>\n
for   bringing  money  from  her  father  and   finally<\/p>\n
somewhere  around the year 1985 she was turned  out  of<\/p>\n
her matrimonial house by the petitioner herein.  A year<\/p>\n
after  this, the respondent\/wife went with  her  father<\/p>\n
Hagroo and Kotwar Nemdas to the house of the petitioner<\/p>\n
where  after wrongly confining them inside a  room  the<\/p>\n
petitioner forcibly got a document executed by them and<\/p>\n
refused  to keep the respondent.  In the hope  that  in<\/p>\n
future at some point of time, the petitioner would take<\/p>\n
her back, the respondent did not lodge a report or take<\/p>\n
any  legal  action even after leaving  the  matrimonial<\/p>\n
home  for 5 to 6 years.  The respondent lived with  her<\/p>\n
father  who  maintained her till his death.  Thereafter<\/p>\n
Motim   Bai,  maternal  aunt  of  the  father  of   the<\/p>\n
respondent,  maintained her till  her  death  3  months<\/p>\n
prior  to  the filing of the application under  Section<\/p>\n
125  of  the  Cr.P.C. The respondent had  no  means  of<\/p>\n
livelihood  and  was unable to maintain  herself.   The<\/p>\n
petitioner  refused  to keep the  respondent  with  him<\/p>\n
despite  efforts  by the respondent on  12.10.2003  and<\/p>\n
19.10.2003  whereupon  application  under  Section  125<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C.  was filed on 23.10.2003.  It was pleaded  that<\/p>\n
the  petitioner herein was drawing salary of Rs.9,000\/-<\/p>\n
as a Teacher in Government service and had around about <\/p>\n
12  acres  of  irrigated agricultural  land  and  other<\/p>\n
income  from  business.   An amount  of  Rs.3,000\/-  as<\/p>\n
monthly maintenance was claimed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.    The petitioner herein denied the averment of  the<\/p>\n
respondent in toto and pleaded that after the birth  of<\/p>\n
Tukeshwar,  the respondent\/wife had suo  moto  gone  to<\/p>\n
live  at  her  maternal home and had developed  illicit<\/p>\n
relationship  with some person.  Two  years  after  the<\/p>\n
birth  of  Tukeshwar, the respondent and the petitioner<\/p>\n
had   mutually  agreed  to  live  separately   and   on<\/p>\n
02.10.1989 a document was executed evidencing that they  <\/p>\n
had  mutually agreed to live separately and the marital<\/p>\n
tie  between them had come to an end.  After this,  the<\/p>\n
respondent  returned  to Kongiyakhurd  and  was  living<\/p>\n
there   of  her  own  volition.   The  allegations   of<\/p>\n
execution of document dated 02.10.1989 per force  after<\/p>\n
wrongful confinement of the respondent, her father  and<\/p>\n
the  Kotwar  were false because had it been  true,  the<\/p>\n
respondent  wife  would  have reported  the  matter  to<\/p>\n
police  or  taken legal action.  In sum and  substance,<\/p>\n
the  petitioner herein contended that the  marital  tie<\/p>\n
between  them  had  come to an end on  02.10.1989,  and <\/p>\n
therefore,  the respondent had ceased to be  his  wife.<\/p>\n
It  was also pleaded that the respondent\/wife was  able<\/p>\n
to  maintain herself as she cultivated her agricultural<\/p>\n
land in village Kongiyakhurd.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.    Before  the Judicial Magistrate First Class,  the<\/p>\n
respondent  wife  examined herself and Rampratap  A.W.2 <\/p>\n
and  her brother Samalia A.W.3.  The petitioner  herein<\/p>\n
proved  document Sahamati Patra dated 02.10.1989 Ex.D.1  <\/p>\n
and besides testifying also examined Bhaiyaram N.A.W.2. <\/p>\n
The  learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,  Bemetara<\/p>\n
recorded a finding that there was no evidence on record<\/p>\n
to  show  that  the respondent herein  was  leading  an<\/p>\n
immoral life.  After appreciating oral evidence and the<\/p>\n
Sahamati Patra Ex.D.1, a finding was recorded that  the<\/p>\n
two  spouses  were living separately by mutual  consent<\/p>\n
and therefore under Section 125 (4) of the Cr.P.C., the<\/p>\n
respondent herein was not entitled to maintenance.   No<\/p>\n
finding  was recorded that the marital tie between  the<\/p>\n
two spouses had come to an end w.e.f. 02.10.1989. <\/p>\n
6.    Being  aggrieved,  the respondent\/wife  preferred<\/p>\n
Criminal  Revision No. 194\/2005 before  the  Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions   Judge,  Bemetara.   The  learned  Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge arrived at a different finding  that  by<\/p>\n
Sahmati Patra Ex.D.1 dated 02.10.1989, the relationship<\/p>\n
between  the two spouses had come to an end  by  mutual  <\/p>\n
consent  and  the petitioner herein had  also  admitted<\/p>\n
that  he  had remarried thereafter.  On these premises,<\/p>\n
it was held that as a divorced wife the respondent\/wife<\/p>\n
was  entitled to maintenance till she remarried and was<\/p>\n
unable  to  maintain  herself.  On  such  finding,  the<\/p>\n
learned  Additional Sessions Judge set aside the  order<\/p>\n
dated  19.07.2005  passed  by the  Judicial  Magistrate<\/p>\n
First  Class and ordered the petitioner herein  to  pay<\/p>\n
monthly  maintenance at the rate of  Rs.1000\/-  to  the<\/p>\n
respondent\/wife from the date of application.<\/p>\n
7.     Shri   K.  A.  Ansari,  learned  Senior  Counsel<\/p>\n
appearing  on  behalf of the petitioner\/husband  argued<\/p>\n
that the learned Additional Sessions Judge acted beyond<\/p>\n
the   scope  of  the  revisional  jurisdiction  in  re-<\/p>\n
appreciating  the evidence and coming to  a  conclusion<\/p>\n
different than the one drawn by the Judicial Magistrate<\/p>\n
First  Class without holding that the finding  recorded<\/p>\n
by the J.M.F.C. was either contrary to law or perverse.<\/p>\n
It  was  also  argued  that in  her  application  under<\/p>\n
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the respondent\/wife did not<\/p>\n
claim maintenance as a divorced wife of the petitioner.<\/p>\n
The  fact  that  from the year 1985 the respondent\/wife<\/p>\n
was  living  separately from her  husband  without  any<\/p>\n
demur substantiated that she was living separately from<\/p>\n
her  husband  by  mutual consent as  evidenced  by  the<\/p>\n
Sahmati Patra Ex.D.1.  Unless the revisional Court came<\/p>\n
in  close  quarters  with the order passed  by  learned<\/p>\n
J.M.F.C.  and  arrived at a conclusion  that  the  said<\/p>\n
order  dated  19.07.2005 suffered  from  illegality  or<\/p>\n
perversity,  the  learned  Additional  Sessions  Judge,<\/p>\n
while allowing the revision, had acted beyond the scope<\/p>\n
of  revisional jurisdiction by setting aside the  order<\/p>\n
dated  19.07.2005  passed  by the  Judicial  Magistrate<\/p>\n
First Class, Bemetra by arriving at a different finding<\/p>\n
on the material on record.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.    On  the  other  hand, Shri P.  P.  Sahu,  learned<\/p>\n
counsel  for the respondent\/wife argued in  support  of<\/p>\n
the  impugned order and urged that if the  pleading  by<\/p>\n
the petitioner\/husband and the document Ex.D.1 (Sahmati <\/p>\n
Patra) were to be accepted, the respondent\/wife was, as<\/p>\n
a  divorced  wife,  entitled to be  maintained  by  the<\/p>\n
petitioner\/husband  till she remarried.   Reliance  was<\/p>\n
placed  on  Vanamala  (Smt.) v.  Shri  H.M.  Ranganatha<\/p>\n
Bhatta,<\/a>  1995 (II) M.P.W.N. 162, Harish Raisen v.  Smt.<\/p>\n
Kavitaba  Raisen,  2007 (4) M.P.L.J.  137  and  Rohtash<\/p>\n
Singh v. Smt. Ramendri and others<\/a>, AIR 2000 SC 952. <\/p>\n
9.    Having considered the rival submissions,  I  have<\/p>\n
perused  the impugned order dated 13.10.2006 passed  by <\/p>\n
the  Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara and the  order<\/p>\n
dated  19.07.2005  passed by Judicial Magistrate  First<\/p>\n
Class,  Bemetara and also the record.  In paragraphs  8<\/p>\n
and  9  of  the impugned order, the learned  Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge did not find any illegality in the order<\/p>\n
dated  19.07.2005  passed  by the  Judicial  Magistrate<\/p>\n
First  Class.   However, on perusal  of  Sahmati  Patra<\/p>\n
Ex.D.1  and placing reliance on a judgment rendered  in<\/p>\n
Vanamala (Smt.) v. Shri H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta<\/a> (supra), <\/p>\n
it  arrived at the conclusion that living separately by<\/p>\n
mutual  consent does not come in the way of a  divorced<\/p>\n
wife  to  receive maintenance till she  re-married.   I<\/p>\n
shall   now  examine  whether  the  learned  Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge was justified in taking the above  view?<\/p>\n
The  respondent\/wife  did not claim  maintenance  as  a<\/p>\n
divorced  wife.  The petitioner denied the  entitlement<\/p>\n
of  the  respondent\/wife to receive maintenance on  the<\/p>\n
ground  that  the marital tie between the  parties  was<\/p>\n
snapped  on  02.10.1989 when Sahmati Patra  Ex.D.1  was  <\/p>\n
executed by the parties.  Burden of proving this was on<\/p>\n
the petitioner\/husband.  A perusal of the testimony  of<\/p>\n
the  petitioner\/husband shows that at no place  did  he<\/p>\n
mention  that  the  relationship between  him  and  the<\/p>\n
respondent\/wife had come to an end on execution of  the<\/p>\n
document Ex.D.1.  Although the respondent\/wife admitted <\/p>\n
that  Ex.D.1  bears her thumb impression  as  also  the<\/p>\n
signature of her father and the Kotwar yet it does  not<\/p>\n
transpire from the testimony of the petitioner that the<\/p>\n
respondent\/wife  had  affixed her thumb  impression  on<\/p>\n
document  Ex.D.1  after it was read  over  to  her  and<\/p>\n
admitted  to  be  correct by  her.   The  petitioner  –<\/p>\n
Mayaram  did not assert anywhere in his testimony  that<\/p>\n
as  per  custom prevalent the relationship between  him<\/p>\n
and  the respondent\/wife had come to an end.  All  that<\/p>\n
he  stated  in paragraph 5 was that after the execution<\/p>\n
of   the  document  Ex.D.1  both  spouses  were  living<\/p>\n
separately.   In  this view of the  matter,  since  the<\/p>\n
respondent\/wife did not claim maintenance as a divorced<\/p>\n
wife  and  the evidence of the petitioner did not  show<\/p>\n
that the relationship of husband and wife had ended  on<\/p>\n
02.10.1989 or that the respondent\/wife had affixed  her<\/p>\n
thumb impression on document Ex.D.1 after the same  was  <\/p>\n
read  over  to  and admitted by her to be correct,  the<\/p>\n
finding  of  entitlement  of  the  respondent\/wife   to<\/p>\n
receive   maintenance  as  a  divorced  wife   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner  herein  by the learned Additional  Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge  is  contrary  to law and facts.   I  am  of  the<\/p>\n
considered opinion that the Sahamati Patra Ex.D.1  does<\/p>\n
not break the marital tie between the parties and could<\/p>\n
at  the most be construed as showing mutual consent  to<\/p>\n
live  separately,  and  therefore,  learned  Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions   Judge   was   not  justified   in   awarding<\/p>\n
maintenance  to the respondent\/wife as a divorced  wife<\/p>\n
by  taking a view different than the one taken  by  the<\/p>\n
learned J.M.F.C.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   The  case law relied on by Shri P.P.Sahu, learned<\/p>\n
counsel  for  the  respondent\/wife does  not  help  the<\/p>\n
respondent in any manner because in the cases cited  by<\/p>\n
him  a  decree for divorce between the two spouses  had<\/p>\n
been passed.  However, in the present case, divorce has<\/p>\n
not   been   effected   between   the   parties.    The<\/p>\n
respondent\/wife  also did not claim  maintenance  as  a<\/p>\n
divorced wife.  The petitioner did not utter a word  in<\/p>\n
his  testimony that the marital tie between him and the<\/p>\n
respondent was snapped on execution of document Ex.D.1.   <\/p>\n
All   that   he  stated  was  that  they  were   living<\/p>\n
separately.  Therefore, the Sahamati Patra Ex.D.1  does<\/p>\n
not snap the marital tie between the petitioner and the<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.    The   only   question  that  now   remains   for<\/p>\n
consideration  is  whether learned Judicial  Magistrate<\/p>\n
First  Class,  Bemetara was justified in  holding  that<\/p>\n
under   Section   125   (4)   of   the   Cr.P.C.    the<\/p>\n
respondent\/wife was disentitled to maintenance  on  the<\/p>\n
ground  that she was living separately from her husband<\/p>\n
by  mutual  consent.  Admittedly, the marriage  between<\/p>\n
two spouses was solemnized in the year 1982.  Gauna was  <\/p>\n
performed  in  1983.   A child was  born  in  1984  and<\/p>\n
thereafter  in 1985 the respondent separated  from  her<\/p>\n
husband.   The  document Ex.D.1 dated  02.10.1989  does  <\/p>\n
show  that  the  petitioner and  the  respondents  were<\/p>\n
living separately by mutual consent.  The pleadings  of<\/p>\n
the  respondent\/wife and the evidence to show that  the<\/p>\n
document  Ex.D.1 dated 02.10.1989 was got executed  per  <\/p>\n
force  is wholly unworthy of any credit because had  it<\/p>\n
been  true the respondent\/wife would not have hesitated<\/p>\n
to  lodge  a  police report or to take any other  legal<\/p>\n
action  against  the husband.  Shri  P.P.Sahu,  learned<\/p>\n
counsel  for  the  respondent\/wife  admitted  that  the<\/p>\n
respondent  did not ever take any step for  restitution<\/p>\n
of  conjugal rights.  Thus, the document Ex.D.1 clearly<\/p>\n
evidences   that   the   respondent\/wife   was   living<\/p>\n
separately  from  her husband by mutual  consent.   The<\/p>\n
fact that after separating from her husband in the year<\/p>\n
1985,  the respondent\/wife did not file any application<\/p>\n
for  receiving maintenance from her husband for as many<\/p>\n
as  18  years also substantiates that during  all  this<\/p>\n
period, the respondent\/wife was living separately  from<\/p>\n
her husband by mutual consent.  The finding recorded by<\/p>\n
the   J.M.F.C.   that  the  respondent\/wife   and   the<\/p>\n
petitioner  were  living separately by mutual  consent,<\/p>\n
and therefore, under sub-section (4) of Section 125  of<\/p>\n
the  Cr.P.C.  the respondent\/wife was not  entitled  to<\/p>\n
receive  maintenance  having  been  founded  on  proper<\/p>\n
appreciation  of  evidence, oral as  also  documentary,<\/p>\n
cannot  be  faulted with.  Even the learned  Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge did not find any illegality in the  said<\/p>\n
finding and erred in taking a different view by holding<\/p>\n
that the respondent\/wife was entitled to maintenance as<\/p>\n
a  divorced  wife.  The Additional Sessions  Judge  had<\/p>\n
thus clearly overstepped the jurisdiction vested in  it<\/p>\n
by law while exercising revisional jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
12.   In this view of the matter, the revision deserves<\/p>\n
to  be  and is accordingly allowed.  The impugned order<\/p>\n
dated  13.10.2006  passed  by the  Additional  Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge  is  set  aside while affirming the  order  dated<\/p>\n
19.07.2005  passed  by  the Judicial  Magistrate  First<\/p>\n
Class, Bemetara.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Mayaram Nishad vs Jamuna Bai on 9 April, 2009 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No 681 of 2006 Mayaram Nishad …Petitioners versus Jamuna Bai …Respondents ! Shri K. A. Ansari, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Ankoash Mishra, counsel for the Petitioner ^ Shri P.P.Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent […]<\/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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35164","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMayaram Nishad vs Jamuna Bai on 9 April, 2009 - 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\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mayaram Nishad vs Jamuna Bai on 9 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-12T21:39:47+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\\\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mayaram Nishad vs Jamuna Bai on 9 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-12T21:39:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2205,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Mayaram Nishad vs Jamuna Bai on 9 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-12T21:39:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mayaram Nishad vs Jamuna Bai on 9 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mayaram Nishad vs Jamuna Bai on 9 April, 2009 - 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\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mayaram Nishad vs Jamuna Bai on 9 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-12T21:39:47+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\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mayaram Nishad vs Jamuna Bai on 9 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-12T21:39:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009"},"wordCount":2205,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009","name":"Mayaram Nishad vs Jamuna Bai on 9 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-12T21:39:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mayaram-nishad-vs-jamuna-bai-on-9-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mayaram Nishad vs Jamuna Bai on 9 April, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35164","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=35164"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35164\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}