{"id":4531,"date":"2010-11-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010"},"modified":"2014-02-19T23:25:36","modified_gmt":"2014-02-19T17:55:36","slug":"sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sushama vs K.Soman on 2 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sushama vs K.Soman on 2 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 3105 of 2010()\n\n\n1. SUSHAMA, SOBHA BHAVAN, S.N.COLLEGE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. K.SOMAN, KOLLANVILA VEEDU,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN\n\n Dated :02\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                         V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n                       -------------------------------\n                      Crl. R.P.No.3105 of 2010\n                       -------------------------------\n           Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010.\n\n                             O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed<\/p>\n
against the accused in a prosecution for an offence punishable<\/p>\n
u\/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused approached<\/p>\n
this court by filing the above revision petition.<\/p>\n
      2.   The case of the complainant is that the accused<\/p>\n
borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000\/- from the complainant and<\/p>\n
towards the discharge of the said liability, the accused issued<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 cheque dated 7.10.2002 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000\/-.<\/p>\n
According to the prosecution, when the above cheque presented<\/p>\n
for encashment dishonoured, as there was no sufficient fund in<\/p>\n
the account maintained by the accused and the cheque amount<\/p>\n
was not repaid inspite of a formal demand notice and thus the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner has committed the offence punishable u\/s.138<\/p>\n
of Negotiable Instruments Act.           With the said allegation, the<\/p>\n
complainant approached the Judl. First Class Magistrate Court-I,<\/p>\n
                               2<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.3105 of 2010<\/p>\n
Attingal, by filing a formal complaint, upon which cognizance<\/p>\n
was taken u\/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and instituted<\/p>\n
C.C.No.697\/03. During the trial of the case, PW1, the<\/p>\n
complainant himself was examined from the side of the<\/p>\n
complainant and Exts.P1 to P6 series were marked. From the<\/p>\n
side of the defence, Dws.1 and 2 and Exts. D1 to D6 were also<\/p>\n
produced and marked. On the basis of the available materials<\/p>\n
and evidence on record, the trial court has found that the<\/p>\n
cheque in question was issued by the revision petitioner\/<\/p>\n
accused for the purpose of discharging his debt due to the<\/p>\n
complainant. Thus accordingly the court found that, the<\/p>\n
complainant has established the case against the accused\/<\/p>\n
revision petitioner and consequently found that the accused is<\/p>\n
guilty and thus convicted him u\/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments<\/p>\n
Act. On such conviction, the trial court sentenced the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months and also<\/p>\n
directed him to pay a sum of Rs.2,02,000\/- to the complainant as<\/p>\n
compensation u\/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C., failing which the revision<\/p>\n
                                 3<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.3105 of 2010<\/p>\n
petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 3<\/p>\n
months.\n<\/p>\n
         3.   Though an appeal was filed, at the instance of the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner\/accused, by judgment dated 18.6.2010 in<\/p>\n
Crl.A.163\/06, the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track<\/p>\n
Court-III), Thiruvananthapuram, allowed the appeal only in part.<\/p>\n
Thus while confirming the conviction, the sentence of<\/p>\n
imprisonment is modified and reduced to one day simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment ie., till the rising of the court and in all other<\/p>\n
respects, ie., with respect to the direction to pay compensation,<\/p>\n
the compensation amount and the default sentence, the trial<\/p>\n
court’s direction are confirmed. It is the above conviction and<\/p>\n
sentence challenged in this revision petition.<\/p>\n
         4.    I have heard Adv.Sri.Pirappancode V.S.Sudhir, the<\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also<\/p>\n
perused the judgments of the courts below.\n<\/p>\n
         5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
vehemently argued that, the trial court as well as the lower<\/p>\n
                                4<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.3105 of 2010<\/p>\n
appellate court committed wrong in holding the guilt of the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner, especially when the revision petitioner has<\/p>\n
established a probable case and thereby rebutted the<\/p>\n
presumption. The learned counsel vehemently submitted that,<\/p>\n
in the evidence of PW1 there is a serious contradiction and<\/p>\n
improvement, regarding the actual place of transaction claimed<\/p>\n
by the complainant. It is also the submission of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel that, the defence version, that the cheque in question<\/p>\n
was one among the two cheques given to the son-in-law of the<\/p>\n
complainant by the husband of the revision petitioner was not<\/p>\n
properly considered by the courts below. The learned counsel<\/p>\n
also submitted that right from the reply notice itself, the stand<\/p>\n
taken by the defence is to the effect that while denying the<\/p>\n
transaction claimed by the complainant, the specific case of the<\/p>\n
defence is that the husband of the revision petitioner had<\/p>\n
transaction with the son-in-law of the complainant and thus<\/p>\n
when the husband of the revision petitioner obtained an amount<\/p>\n
from the son-in-law during the year 1999, he had issued two<\/p>\n
                                 5<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.3105 of 2010<\/p>\n
cheques and though the said liabilities have already discharged<\/p>\n
by the husband, the cheque in question was not returned and<\/p>\n
the same were reached in the hands of the complainant through<\/p>\n
the daughter of the complainant because there was difference of<\/p>\n
opinion among the daughter of the complainant and his son-in-<\/p>\n
law. On the basis of the above version and supported by Ext.D1<\/p>\n
statement of account of the bank, which would show that there<\/p>\n
was no transaction after 22.11.2000 and therefore according to<\/p>\n
the learned counsel, the entire case of the complainant is false<\/p>\n
and the same was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n
         6. I am unable to sustain the above contentions and<\/p>\n
pleadings. At the outset it has to be noted that, the courts below<\/p>\n
have concurrently found in favour of the complainant and<\/p>\n
rejecting the contention advanced by the defence. It has to be<\/p>\n
noted that the complainant himself was mounted to the box and<\/p>\n
deposed regarding the transaction and in terms of the<\/p>\n
averments contained in the complaint and he had produced<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 cheque from his possession and the said cheque is<\/p>\n
                                 6<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.3105 of 2010<\/p>\n
pertained to the account of the revision petitioner and the same<\/p>\n
contain his signature. In order to circumvent the above evidence<\/p>\n
of the case of the complainant, the plea set up by the accused is<\/p>\n
to the effect that the cheque in question is one among the two<\/p>\n
cheques given to the son-in-law of the complainant during the<\/p>\n
year 1999 connected with a transaction between the husband of<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner and the said son-in-law of the<\/p>\n
complainant. It is also the case of the revision petitioner that,<\/p>\n
those liabilities were discharged by the husband of the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner. The trial court in its judgment through an elaborate<\/p>\n
discussion that contained in para 7 of its judgment found that the<\/p>\n
said version of the defence is false as the same was not<\/p>\n
substantiated. I am not proposed to reproduce the findings or<\/p>\n
the observations entered into by the trial court.      In order to<\/p>\n
establish the above part of the defence version, no evidence is<\/p>\n
adduced and no contemporary document is produced. Therefore<\/p>\n
mere denial or explanation is not sufficient to substitute the legal<\/p>\n
requirement of rebutting the presumption. When the accused<\/p>\n
                                 7<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.3105 of 2010<\/p>\n
pleaded that the cheque in question reached in the possession<\/p>\n
of the complainant, at least it is his primary duty to establish or<\/p>\n
probabilise that the cheque in question was entrusted with the<\/p>\n
son of the complainant. But there is no evidence or material.<\/p>\n
Mere assertion is not sufficient. It is true that regarding the<\/p>\n
place of transaction claimed by the complainant, there is some<\/p>\n
improvement, which according to me is not sufficient to rebut the<\/p>\n
presumption which is otherwise in favour of the complainant by<\/p>\n
virtue of S.118(a) and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act,<\/p>\n
especially when the complainant produced the cheque in<\/p>\n
question from his possession and supported by his oral<\/p>\n
evidence. In the light of the above facts and circumstances and<\/p>\n
the materials on record, I find no reason to interfere with the<\/p>\n
order of conviction recorded by the courts below and accordingly<\/p>\n
the conviction recorded by the courts below is approved.<\/p>\n
         7. As this court is not inclined to interfere with the<\/p>\n
conviction recorded by the courts below, the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner submitted that, some breathing time may<\/p>\n
                                      8<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.3105 of 2010<\/p>\n
be granted to pay the compensation amount. Having regard to<\/p>\n
the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the<\/p>\n
view that the said submission can be considered positively but<\/p>\n
subject to other facts and circumstances involved in the case.<\/p>\n
         8. The apex court in a recent decision reported in<\/p>\n
Damodar S.Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (JT<\/a> 2010(4) SC 457)<\/p>\n
has held that, in the case of dishonour of cheques, the<\/p>\n
compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority<\/p>\n
over the punitive aspects. In the present case, the cheque in<\/p>\n
question is dated 7.10.2002, that too for an amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.2,00,000\/-. Thus as per the records and the findings of the<\/p>\n
courts below, which approved by this court, a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.2,00,000\/- which belonged to the complainant is with the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner for the last 8 years. Considering the above<\/p>\n
facts and settled legal position, I am of the view that, while<\/p>\n
granting some time to the revision petitioner to pay the<\/p>\n
compensation, the amount can be enhanced slightly.<\/p>\n
         In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming<\/p>\n
                                     9<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.3105 of 2010<\/p>\n
the conviction against the revision petitioner u\/s.138 of<\/p>\n
Negotiable Instruments Act as recorded by the courts below.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the<\/p>\n
courts below is confirmed and the revision petitioner is directed<\/p>\n
to pay a sum of Rs.2,35,000\/- to the complainant as<\/p>\n
compensation u\/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C., within 3 months from today,<\/p>\n
and in default in paying the compensation amount within the<\/p>\n
time stipulated above, the revision petitioner is directed to<\/p>\n
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before<\/p>\n
the trial court on 2.2.2011, to receive the sentence of<\/p>\n
imprisonment and to pay the compensation amount as fixed by<\/p>\n
this court.         In case, any failure on the part of the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner in appearing before the court below as directed above<\/p>\n
and in paying the compensation amount, the trial court is free to<\/p>\n
take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner and to execute the sentence awarded against the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner. The execution of warrant if any, pending<\/p>\n
                                     10<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.3105 of 2010<\/p>\n
against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 2.2.2011.<\/p>\n
         Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n
                                                     V.K.MOHANAN,
\n                                                          Judge.\n<\/p>\n
ami\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sushama vs K.Soman on 2 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3105 of 2010() 1. SUSHAMA, SOBHA BHAVAN, S.N.COLLEGE, … Petitioner Vs 1. K.SOMAN, KOLLANVILA VEEDU, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE For Petitioner :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/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-4531","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSushama vs K.Soman on 2 November, 2010 - 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\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sushama vs K.Soman on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-19T17:55:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sushama vs K.Soman on 2 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-19T17:55:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1645,\"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\\\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Sushama vs K.Soman on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-19T17:55:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sushama vs K.Soman on 2 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Sushama vs K.Soman on 2 November, 2010 - 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\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sushama vs K.Soman on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-19T17:55:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sushama vs K.Soman on 2 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-19T17:55:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010"},"wordCount":1645,"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\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010","name":"Sushama vs K.Soman on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-19T17:55:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sushama-vs-k-soman-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sushama vs K.Soman on 2 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/4531","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=4531"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4531\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4531"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4531"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4531"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}