{"id":39602,"date":"2008-07-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008"},"modified":"2016-02-18T16:54:05","modified_gmt":"2016-02-18T11:24:05","slug":"radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Radhikaben vs Rule on 31 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Radhikaben vs Rule on 31 July, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nMCA\/1979\/2007\t 5\/ 5\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nMISC.CIVIL\nAPPLICATION - FOR TRANSFER No. 1979 of 2007\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is  to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nRADHIKABEN\nCHIRAGBEN MEHTA - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nCHIRAGKUMAR\nRAMESHCHANDRA MEHTA &amp; 1 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMS\nARCHANA R ACHARYA for\nApplicant(s) : 1, \nMR AMRISH K PANDYA for Opponent(s) : 1, \nMR\nVIPUL MISTRY ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Opponent(s) :\n2, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 31\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>RULE.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.Amrish Pandya, learned advocate and Mr.Vipul Mistry, learned<br \/>\n\tAsst. Government Pleader, waive the service of notice of admission<br \/>\n\ton behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively.\n<\/p>\n<p>With<br \/>\n\tthe consent of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\n\trespective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.\n<\/p>\n<p>Present<br \/>\n\tpetition under sec.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner ?  wife  for an appropriate order to transfer Hindu<br \/>\n\tMarriage Petition No. 598 of 2007 from the court of  learned 4th<br \/>\n\tJudge, Family Court, Ahmedabad  to the Competent Court  having<br \/>\n\tjurisdiction at City Bharuch, District Bharuch.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis the contention on behalf of the petitioner that  she has married<br \/>\n\twith the respondent No.1 on 28\/1\/2005 and she came to Ahmedabad at<br \/>\n\ther matrimonial house and thereafter, the respondent No.1 and his<br \/>\n\tfamily members, more particularly, mother-in-law of the petitioner<br \/>\n\tstarted ill-treating the petitioner mentally and physically and<br \/>\n\ttherefore, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house and<br \/>\n\tsince then she is residing at Bharuch at her parents house. It is<br \/>\n\tfurther submitted that thereafter, the petitioner was constrained to<br \/>\n\tfile Criminal Misc. Application No.224 of 2007 before the Chief<br \/>\n\tJudicial Magistrate, Bharuch seeking maintenance under sec.125 of<br \/>\n\tthe Code<br \/>\n\tof Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted<br \/>\n\tthat as a counter blast, the respondent No.1 husband has filed suit<br \/>\n\tfor dissolution of marriage being Hindu Marriage Petition No. 598 of<br \/>\n\t2007 in the Family Court at Ahmedabad. It is submitted that the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner is residing with her aged parents and she has never<br \/>\n\ttravelled alone. It is submitted that the father fo the petitioner<br \/>\n\tis aged about 70 years and is not capable to travel from Bharuch to<br \/>\n\tAhmedabad to give company to the petitioner to attend the<br \/>\n\tproceedings on every date of adjournments. It is also submitted that<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner is dependent on her parents and has no independent<br \/>\n\tsource of income. It is submitted that  it is not convenient for the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner to attend the proceedings in the Family Court at<br \/>\n\tAhmedabad  on every date of adjournment. It is submitted that<br \/>\n\tfinancially also it is not possible for the petitioner to meet with<br \/>\n\tthe expenditure of coming to Ahmedabad. Therefore, it is requested<br \/>\n\tto allow the present petition and transfer the proceedings in<br \/>\n\tquestion to the Civil Court at Bharuch. The learned advocate<br \/>\n\tappearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the decision<br \/>\n\tof the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumita Singh V\/s.<br \/>\n\tKumar Sanjay and another, reported<br \/>\n\tin AIR 2002 S.C. 396, in<br \/>\n\tsupport of his prayer to allow the present petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetition is opposed by Mr.Amrish Pandya, learned advocate appearing<br \/>\n\ton behalf of the  respondent husband. It is submitted that in the<br \/>\n\tfacts and circumstances of the case and when the respondent is<br \/>\n\tresiding at Ahmedabad, the proceedings may not be transferred to the<br \/>\n\tCourt at Bharuch.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHeard<br \/>\n\tthe learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tappears  that the petitioner wife is residing at Bharuch with her<br \/>\n\tparents. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was compelled<br \/>\n\tto leave her matrimonial house. It appears that the petitioner in<br \/>\n\tfirst point of time has initiated proceedings under sec.125 of the<br \/>\n\tCode of Criminal<br \/>\n\tProcedure  in the Court at Bharuch and thereafter as a<br \/>\n\tcounter blast the respondent No.1 husband has filed Hindu Marriage<br \/>\n\tPetition No.598 of 2007 in the Family Court, Ahmedabad. It is the<br \/>\n\tcontention on behalf of the petitioner wife that looking to the<br \/>\n\tdistance between  the Bharuch and Ahmedabad, it will not be possible<br \/>\n\tfor the petitioner to attend the proceedings pending in the Family<br \/>\n\tCourt at Ahmedabad on every date of adjournment and as the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner has no independent  source of income, it will not be<br \/>\n\tpossible for the petitioner to meet with the expenditure of<br \/>\n\ttravelling to Ahmedabad on every date of adjournment.  As observed<br \/>\n\tby the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court  in the case of  Sumita Singh<br \/>\n\t(supra), in a matrimonial<br \/>\n\tproceedings while considering sec.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure,<br \/>\n\tconvenience of the wife is required to be considered. Considering<br \/>\n\tthe above,  the petition deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor<br \/>\n\tthe reasons stated above, the petition succeeds. It is hereby<br \/>\n\tordered to transfer Marriage Petition No.598 of 2007 from the court<br \/>\n\tof learned 4th Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad to the<br \/>\n\tDistrict Court, Bharuch and in turn the District Judge, Bharuch  to<br \/>\n\ttransfer the said proceedings to the competent court having<br \/>\n\tjurisdiction in Bharuch. Rule is made absolute accordingly.   In the<br \/>\n\tfacts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to<br \/>\n\tcosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[M.R.\n<\/p>\n<p>SHAH, J.]<\/p>\n<p>rafik<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Radhikaben vs Rule on 31 July, 2008 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print MCA\/1979\/2007 5\/ 5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION &#8211; FOR TRANSFER No. 1979 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39602","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Radhikaben vs Rule on 31 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Radhikaben vs Rule on 31 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-18T11:24:05+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Radhikaben vs Rule on 31 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-18T11:24:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":781,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Radhikaben vs Rule on 31 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-18T11:24:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Radhikaben vs Rule on 31 July, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Radhikaben vs Rule on 31 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Radhikaben vs Rule on 31 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-18T11:24:05+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Radhikaben vs Rule on 31 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-18T11:24:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008"},"wordCount":781,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008","name":"Radhikaben vs Rule on 31 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-18T11:24:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhikaben-vs-rule-on-31-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Radhikaben vs Rule on 31 July, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/39602","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=39602"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39602\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39602"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39602"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39602"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}