{"id":39958,"date":"2008-10-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008"},"modified":"2017-08-01T10:02:31","modified_gmt":"2017-08-01T04:32:31","slug":"ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ravindra Atmaram Patil vs Kavita on 8 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Ravindra Atmaram Patil vs Kavita on 8 October, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: A.P. Bhangale<\/div>\n
                                                 1\n\n\n                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                              BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.\n\n                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO:145\/2004\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                     \n                Ravindra Atmaram Patil\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n                Aged about 33 years, occu: service\n                R\/o Parda Po: Kharbadi Tq. Motala\n                Dist. Buldana.                ..                      APPLICANT\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n                versus\n\n    1)          Kavita w\/o Ravindra Patil\n                (*Kavita RamkrushnaUmale\n                Aged about 29 years, occu: Teacher\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n                C\/o Sahkhar Vidya Mandir\n                R\/o Dongarkhandala Tq.& Dist. Buldana.\n                              \n    2)          Ku.Rupali d\/o Ravindra patil\n                Aged about 4 years, minor by guardian\n                             \n                mother the non-applicant no.1.\n                C\/o Kavita w\/o Ravindra Patil\n                Sahkhar Vidya Mandir\n                R\/o Dongarkhandala Tq.\n                & Dist. Buldana.              ...                     RESPONDENTs\n       \n\n\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n    \n\n\n\n                 Mr A V Bhide, Advocate for the applicant\n                 Mr. A J Khan Adv.for Respondents\n\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n                                           CORAM: A.P.BHANGALE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                           DATED : 08th October, 2008<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT :\n<\/p>\n
                 Heard submissions at the Bar.\n<\/p>\n
    2.           It appears that non-applicant (respondent no.1 herein ) had<\/p>\n
    approached the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Buldana by means of<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:57:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
    Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.1\/2001 praying for maintenance<\/p>\n
    u\/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By the judgment and<\/p>\n
    order dated     31st October 2002, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate<\/p>\n
    Buldana      was pleased to order maintenance in favour of Ku. Rupali<\/p>\n
    Ravindra Patil,      aged about one year,      ( a minor ),          but rejected<\/p>\n
    maintenance in favour of applicant no.1 Sau.Kavita Ravindra Patil. The<\/p>\n
    applicant no.2       Ku.Rupali   was allowed maintenance @ Rs. 500 per<\/p>\n
    month.    The order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Buldana<\/p>\n
    was challenged by the non-applicant Ravindra Atmaram                       Patil by<\/p>\n
    Criminal Revision Application No.9\/2003; whereas         Sau.Kavita Patil also<\/p>\n
    challenged the order by filing Criminal Revision Application No.152\/2002.\n<\/p>\n
    Both the Revision Applications were decided by the learned Sessions<\/p>\n
    Judge, Buldana        by a common judgment delivered on 13th July 2004.\n<\/p>\n
    While Criminal Revision Application No.9\/2003           filed by non-applicant<\/p>\n
    Ravindra Atmaram Patil was dismissed; Criminal Revision Application<\/p>\n
    No.152\/2002       filed by Sau. Kavita Patil was partly allowed           and      her<\/p>\n
    husband was directed to pay maintenance to her             @     Rs. 400 \/- per<\/p>\n
    month     ; whereas order regarding payment of Rs. 500\/- per month to<\/p>\n
    Rupali Patil    was maintained.\n<\/p>\n
    3.         By this Revision Application, the      applicant       Ravindra Patil<\/p>\n
    challenged     the order granting   maintenance     in the sum of Rs. 400<\/p>\n
    Sau. Kavita Patil.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:57:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
    4.          It is   contended by learned counsel on behalf of the revision<\/p>\n
    petitioner herein that Sau. Kavita had suppressed the fact that she is<\/p>\n
    gainfully employed as a teacher and earning Rs. 1800\/-per month as<\/p>\n
    salary since the year 2000, and, as such, she is not entitled to claim any<\/p>\n
    maintenance amount as it is necessary to establish that she was unable<\/p>\n
    to maintain herself.                 Learned counsel also submitted that the<\/p>\n
    Respondent Kavita Patil since had concealed the fact of her employment<\/p>\n
    though it is temporary, could not have been awarded maintenance @ Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    400\/-      per month.             It is further contended that applicant            is also<\/p>\n
    required to maintain his mother inasmuch as he is serving as a Junior<\/p>\n
    Clerk with District Treasury Office at Buldana.\n<\/p>\n
    5.          Per contra,           learned counsel for respondents supported the<\/p>\n
    impugned judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
    Buldana.\n<\/p>\n
    6.          I have        gone through the impugned judgment                 as also the<\/p>\n
    judgment     by     the    learned        Chief   Judicial    Magistrate,        Buldana.\n<\/p>\n
    Considering the reasons for grant of maintenance amount to Sau.Kavita<\/p>\n
    Patil, it does appear that her employment which is in evidence on the<\/p>\n
    basis of admission by Smt.               Reeta Kamalchand Chavan, a witness<\/p>\n
    examined to prove that she was gainfully employed, is                    referred in the<\/p>\n
    impugned judgment.           It    does appear that after marriage between                the<\/p>\n
    parties,    just within nine months             she had to leave her matrimonial<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:57:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
    home.       They had married on 5.2.1999 and it is alleged that she was<\/p>\n
    compelled to leave matrimonial home.            Under these circumstances,<\/p>\n
    assuming that she is gainfully employed in the school which opened in<\/p>\n
    the year 2000 as a teacher which, according to her Head Mistress, is a<\/p>\n
    temporary employment,        cannot by itself,        disentitle her to claim<\/p>\n
    maintenance.     Considering the fact that she is wife of a Junior Clerk in<\/p>\n
    the District Treasury Office and under compulsive              circumstances left<\/p>\n
    matrimonial home, there was no option for her              except to search for<\/p>\n
    employment in order to sustain herself and her child.             Nobody        can be<\/p>\n
    blamed for<\/p>\n
                  searching    and   availing   of subsistence allowance            in the<\/p>\n
    present circumstances, more so considering the growing rate of inflation<\/p>\n
    and rising prices. One must have sufficient maintenance to meet all basic<\/p>\n
    needs. According to learned counsel for the revision petitioner since she<\/p>\n
    suppressed the    fact of her    temporary    employment she is disentitled<\/p>\n
    from claiming maintenance.           I cannot agree with this submission<\/p>\n
    because it is a fact of     common knowledge that the applicant while<\/p>\n
    approaching the Advocate may be advised and may act on such advice<\/p>\n
    resulting    in non-disclosure that she was temporarily employed and<\/p>\n
    such fact    by itself would not disentitle her to claim maintenance from<\/p>\n
    her husband who had refused to maintain his wife and abandoned her<\/p>\n
    company within months after marriage.\n<\/p>\n
    7.          An identical    issue was considered            in Smt. Asha Anil<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:57:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
    Deshmukh    vs. Anil   Mahadeorao Deshmukh<\/a> reported in 1996 Cr.L.J.\n<\/p>\n
    2751 (Bombay High Court ).       Under the        circumstances when in the<\/p>\n
    original proceeding the wife had        specifically     denied that she             was<\/p>\n
    gainfully employed as also her ability to support herself, it was held that<\/p>\n
    there was no element of deceit or cheating against the husband or the<\/p>\n
    Court which is an essential element          of    fraud      and there was no<\/p>\n
    suppression on the part of the wife either. It was particularly observed<\/p>\n
    that if wife was gainfully employed that would not disentitle                her from<\/p>\n
    initiating an action u\/s. 125 Cr.P.C. as she can still convince the court<\/p>\n
    that even after the employment she was unable to maintain herself.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore, even assuming that the wife knew that she was gainfully<\/p>\n
    employed that would not come in her way of initiating an action under<\/p>\n
    section 125 Cr.P.C.    Thus   helpless women who has been forsaken by<\/p>\n
    her husband who        refused to maintain her, in such a case, even<\/p>\n
    assuming that she was employed, it cannot be presumed that she was<\/p>\n
    getting salary from the permanent employment                 and indeed that is<\/p>\n
    sufficient to maintain herself. The principle of fraud to non suite the<\/p>\n
    party on the basis of it is not attracted in the facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
    which are altogether different in proceedings for maintenance u\/s 125<\/p>\n
    Cr.P.C. That being so, no fault can be found with impugned judgment<\/p>\n
    and order by which respondent Kavita was granted maintenance in the<\/p>\n
    sum of Rs. 400\/- per month even            assuming that           she is gainfully<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:57:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
    employed as a teacher at the salary of Rs. 1800 per month. It must be<\/p>\n
    borne in mind that she will have to get sufficient amount to                    maintain<\/p>\n
    herself     as well as    her child and       the additional       sum of Rs. 400\/-\n<\/p>\n
    payable     to her   by her husband would be supplementary                     necessary<\/p>\n
    income for       and her child to maintain themselves reasonably well<\/p>\n
    considering their standard of living as also bearing in mind the spiralling<\/p>\n
    inflation    and rising     prices   of       essential commodities.           Hence no<\/p>\n
    interference is called for with the impugned judgment and order.                    Hence<\/p>\n
    Revision Application is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                              ig                                    JUDGE\n\n    sahare\n                            \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:57:44 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Ravindra Atmaram Patil vs Kavita on 8 October, 2008 Bench: A.P. Bhangale 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO:145\/2004 Ravindra Atmaram Patil Aged about 33 years, occu: service R\/o Parda Po: Kharbadi Tq. Motala Dist. Buldana. .. APPLICANT versus 1) Kavita w\/o […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39958","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRavindra Atmaram Patil vs Kavita on 8 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\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ravindra Atmaram Patil vs Kavita on 8 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-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=\"2008-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-01T04:32:31+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\\\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ravindra Atmaram Patil vs Kavita on 8 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-01T04:32:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1079,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Ravindra Atmaram Patil vs Kavita on 8 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-01T04:32:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ravindra Atmaram Patil vs Kavita on 8 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":"Ravindra Atmaram Patil vs Kavita on 8 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\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ravindra Atmaram Patil vs Kavita on 8 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-01T04:32:31+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\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ravindra Atmaram Patil vs Kavita on 8 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-01T04:32:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008"},"wordCount":1079,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008","name":"Ravindra Atmaram Patil vs Kavita on 8 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-01T04:32:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-atmaram-patil-vs-kavita-on-8-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ravindra Atmaram Patil vs Kavita on 8 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\/39958","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=39958"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39958\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39958"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39958"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39958"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}