{"id":35242,"date":"2007-02-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007"},"modified":"2014-02-08T15:55:23","modified_gmt":"2014-02-08T10:25:23","slug":"pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Pallithottuka Abdul Azeez vs Kadannoli Aysha on 21 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Pallithottuka Abdul Azeez vs Kadannoli Aysha on 21 February, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl MC No. 447 of 2007()\n\n\n1. PALLITHOTTUKA ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 56 YEARS\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KADANNOLI AYSHA, AGED 45 YEARS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.KHALID\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :21\/02\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                                 R. BASANT, J.\n\n                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n                         Crl.M.C.No.  447 of   2007\n\n                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n               Dated this the 21st   day of   February, 2007\n\n\n                                     O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
       The  petitioner assails  a revised direction issued under Section<\/p>\n
3(1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act in<\/p>\n
this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2.     Marriage   is  admitted.     Divorce   is   also   admitted.     That   no<\/p>\n
amount has  been paid under Section  3(1) of the  Act is also without<\/p>\n
dispute.   The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
the petitioner is liable to pay amounts to the claimant\/divorced wife<\/p>\n
as maintenance during the period of  Iddat and  as reasonable and fair<\/p>\n
provision     for the future.   While   the learned Magistrates quantified<\/p>\n
the amount at Rs.42,500\/-   (i.e. Rs.1,750 x 3  as maintenance during<\/p>\n
the   period   of   Iddat   and   Rs.40,000\/-     being   consolidated   amount   of<\/p>\n
reasonable   and   fair   provision),   the     learned   Sessions   Judge<\/p>\n
indulgently modified and reduced  the quantum which is liable to be<\/p>\n
paid.   Taking into account all the circumstances, the learned Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge   held  that  an  amount of Rs.1,500\/-  (500 x 3) as maintenance<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.  447 of   2007                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
during   the   period   of   Iddat   and   an   amount   of   Rs.25,200\/-   (7   years   x   12<\/p>\n
months x 300) will be   fair and reasonable.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        3.   The petitioner has come to this Court to assail the said   modified<\/p>\n
direction.   It is contended   that no amount should have been directed to be<\/p>\n
paid at all considering the means of the petitioner and state of his health.  At<\/p>\n
any rate, the quantification is perverse, it is further contended.<\/p>\n
        4.  I must alertly remind  myself of the nature, quality and contours of<\/p>\n
jurisdiction   of   this   Court   when   challenge   is   raised   against   the   concurrent<\/p>\n
finding  that the petitioner is liable to pay amounts under Section 3(1) of the<\/p>\n
Act.    Jurisdiction  under  Section  482  Cr.P.C. is  an  extra  ordinary inherent<\/p>\n
jurisdiction.         Has   there   been   failure\/miscarriage   of   justice?   This   is   the<\/p>\n
mantra   to   be   followed   by     Court.   Errors   committed   in   facts   or   in   the<\/p>\n
appreciation of evidence will not   persuade this Court to interfere with the<\/p>\n
concurrent   finding   that   the   petitioner     is   liable   under   Section   3(1)   of   the<\/p>\n
Act.        The crucial  question  to  be considered  is,  has  there been  failure  of<\/p>\n
justice?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        5.     It   was   a   unilateral   divorce   after   about   18   years   of   marital   life,<\/p>\n
though the petitioner would urge that it was at the instance of his wife that<\/p>\n
he agreed to divorce her.  No specific material to that effect is available.  It<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.  447 of   2007                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
is also not disputed   that the claimant\/divorced wife, a woman in her 40s,<\/p>\n
remains unmarried even now.  It is also not disputed that the petitioner has<\/p>\n
got remarried promptly after the divorce.  There is no material to show that<\/p>\n
either party has any landed property.  The claimant wife admittedly has now<\/p>\n
taken  shelter with her son in the previous  marriage of hers.   The children<\/p>\n
born in the wedlock between the claimant and the petitioner are admittedly<\/p>\n
residing now  with the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        6.   The rival  contestants  made assertions about the means.  Specific<\/p>\n
evidence of tangible means was not available.  The learned Magistrate and<\/p>\n
the   learned   Sessions   Judge   took   note   of   the   broad   probabilities.     The<\/p>\n
children   living   with   the   petitioner   and   the   newly   married   wife   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner are obviously looking into the petitioner for support.   There is no<\/p>\n
tangible evidence for this.  The counsel contends that it is puerile  to assume<\/p>\n
from  those     circumstances   that     the   petitioner   has   any   means.     The   court<\/p>\n
cannot   sit   in   an   island   oblivious   to   realities   of   life.     Section   114   of   the<\/p>\n
Evidence Act permits and obliges the court to make   prudent assumptions<\/p>\n
and   presumptions   of   fact.     In   the   totality   of   circumstances,   which   are<\/p>\n
available in this case, according to me, it would be perverse for any court or<\/p>\n
any   prudent   mind   to   assume   that   the   petitioner   is   a   person   without   any<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.  447 of   2007                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
means.  The circumstances which I have referred to earlier, notwithstanding<\/p>\n
the fact  that  there is no tangible  evidence,    conclude  that the  petitioner  is<\/p>\n
not a person without means.  It would be imprudence of the worst variety in<\/p>\n
the     circumstances   of   the   case   to   lightly   assume   that   the   petitioner   who<\/p>\n
voluntarily embraced the additional  responsibility of a subsequent marriage<\/p>\n
without any means.     In these circumstances  I am unable to agree that the<\/p>\n
court below committed any error in making  that assumption.<\/p>\n
       7.         The   counsel   assails   the   quantum   fixed   at   Rs.500\/-   p.m.   as<\/p>\n
maintenance during the period of Iddat and Rs.300\/- p.m. while attempting<\/p>\n
to   quantify   the   lump   sum       amount   payable   as   equivalent   to   7   years<\/p>\n
maintenance.     The   quantification   made   and   the   principles   adopted     do<\/p>\n
appeal to me, in the circumstances,  to be  absolutely reasonable and do not,<\/p>\n
at any rate, persuade me to invoke the extra ordinary inherent   jurisdiction<\/p>\n
to   interfere   with   such   finding   of   fact   and   quantification.       The   quantum<\/p>\n
fixed, according to me, is   modest, cogent, reasonable and consistent with<\/p>\n
the indisputable  facts available in this case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       8.     The   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   then   contends   that   the<\/p>\n
claimant   has  the  option   of  approaching     her  possible   legal   heirs     and   the<\/p>\n
Wakf Board for maintenance under Section 4 of the Act.  Those provisions<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.  447 of   2007                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
deal   with   the   unfortunate   situation   when   a   woman   having   obtained   the<\/p>\n
amounts  under Section  3  still finds  her to be    unable  to    maintain  herself<\/p>\n
later.   It will be imprudent and  perverse to assume that the  stipulations  in<\/p>\n
Section 4 are  sufficient  to displace  or reduce   the liability of the husband<\/p>\n
under Section 3.    The compassion of  the law in favour of a woman, who<\/p>\n
having obtained the lump sum amount under Section 3(1) already,  becomes<\/p>\n
disentitled to the benefit of Section 125 Cr.P.C. under   Section   127(3)(b)<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. to claim maintenance and who remains unmarried and is   liable to<\/p>\n
maintain herself    is reflected in Section 4.   That safety valve provided for<\/p>\n
the impecunious wife   to go with a begging bowl before her possible legal<\/p>\n
heirs  or the Wakf Board cannot at any rate be   a defence  for the husband<\/p>\n
to a   claim  under Section 3 either for absolution or for mitigation.  In any<\/p>\n
view of the matter,  I am satisfied that the impugned order does not warrant<\/p>\n
interference.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         9.  This Crl.M.C. is hence dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                        (R. BASANT)<\/p>\n
                                                             Judge<\/p>\n
tm<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.  447 of   2007    6<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Pallithottuka Abdul Azeez vs Kadannoli Aysha on 21 February, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl MC No. 447 of 2007() 1. PALLITHOTTUKA ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 56 YEARS … Petitioner Vs 1. KADANNOLI AYSHA, AGED 45 YEARS, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, For Petitioner :SRI.C.KHALID For 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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35242","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPallithottuka Abdul Azeez vs Kadannoli Aysha on 21 February, 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\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pallithottuka Abdul Azeez vs Kadannoli Aysha on 21 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-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=\"2007-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-08T10:25:23+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\\\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pallithottuka Abdul Azeez vs Kadannoli Aysha on 21 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-08T10:25:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1028,\"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\\\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Pallithottuka Abdul Azeez vs Kadannoli Aysha on 21 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-08T10:25:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pallithottuka Abdul Azeez vs Kadannoli Aysha on 21 February, 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":"Pallithottuka Abdul Azeez vs Kadannoli Aysha on 21 February, 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\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pallithottuka Abdul Azeez vs Kadannoli Aysha on 21 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-08T10:25:23+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\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pallithottuka Abdul Azeez vs Kadannoli Aysha on 21 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-08T10:25:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007"},"wordCount":1028,"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\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007","name":"Pallithottuka Abdul Azeez vs Kadannoli Aysha on 21 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-08T10:25:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pallithottuka-abdul-azeez-vs-kadannoli-aysha-on-21-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pallithottuka Abdul Azeez vs Kadannoli Aysha on 21 February, 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\/35242","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=35242"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35242\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35242"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35242"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35242"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}