{"id":47120,"date":"2007-08-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007"},"modified":"2017-02-07T06:38:50","modified_gmt":"2017-02-07T01:08:50","slug":"shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"Shekhar Chouhan vs Geeta Devi on 17 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shekhar Chouhan vs Geeta Devi on 17 August, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR        \n\n        FAM No 10 of 2007\n\n        Shekhar  Chouhan\n\n                        ...Petitioner\n\n                           VERSUS\n\n        Geeta Devi\n\n                        ...Respondent\n\n!       Shri Pankaj Shrivastava counsel for the appellant\n\n^       No one appears for the respondent\n\n        Honble Shri Justice Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh\n\n        Dated: 17\/08\/2007\n\n:       Order\n\n\n\n        Appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955\n\n\n\n                       O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>        (Passed on this 17th day of August 2007)<\/p>\n<p>        This  appeal is directed against an  order  dated<\/p>\n<p>30.12.2006 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge,<\/p>\n<p>Manendragarh,  Distt. Korea in Civil  Suit  No.17-A  of<\/p>\n<p>2006 whereby permanent alimony of Rs.2000\/- was granted  <\/p>\n<p>to  the  respondent\/plaintiff under Section 25  of  the<\/p>\n<p>Hindu  Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred  to  as<\/p>\n<p>the Act, 1955)<\/p>\n<p>2.    Admittedly,  the  appellant was  married  to  the<\/p>\n<p>respondent in the year 1977 and had four children  from<\/p>\n<p>the  marital  wedlock.  It is also not in dispute  that<\/p>\n<p>the  appellant married Sita Devi during the subsistence<\/p>\n<p>of  the  marriage  with  the  respondent  and  has  two<\/p>\n<p>children  from her.  Civil Suit No.2-A of 89 instituted<\/p>\n<p>by the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights was<\/p>\n<p>dismissed    by   the   Additional   District    Judge,<\/p>\n<p>Manendragarh  vide  judgment  dated  25.09.1990.    The<\/p>\n<p>appellant  has  the  custody  of  the  children.    The<\/p>\n<p>respondent  lives  at  her maternal  home.   The  gross<\/p>\n<p>salary of the appellant was Rs.9985.97 in the month  of<\/p>\n<p>November, 2006.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>3.    The  respondent\/plaintiff had, in her application<\/p>\n<p>under  Section 25 of the Act, 1955 stated that she  was<\/p>\n<p>living  in  her  maternal home at Jhagrakhand  and  was<\/p>\n<p>unable to maintain herself.  The appellant did not even<\/p>\n<p>pay to her the meager maintenance of Rs.150\/- per month <\/p>\n<p>granted in proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.   A<\/p>\n<p>permanent alimony of Rs.6,000\/- per month was claimed. <\/p>\n<p>4.    The  appellant denied the claim and pleaded  that<\/p>\n<p>the  respondent had sufficient income from knitting and<\/p>\n<p>tailoring as also from poultry.  Since he had  a  large<\/p>\n<p>family to support, the application under Section 25  of<\/p>\n<p>the Act was liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>5.     The   learned  2nd  Additional  District  Judge,<\/p>\n<p>Manendragarh,  on  appreciation  of  evidence,  granted<\/p>\n<p>permanent alimony of Rs.2,000\/- per month from the date<\/p>\n<p>of application till lifetime of the respondent herein.<\/p>\n<p>6.    Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, learned counsel for  the<\/p>\n<p>appellant  has  impugned the order dated 30.12.2006  on<\/p>\n<p>the  sole ground that the permanent alimony awarded  by<\/p>\n<p>the  2nd Additional District Judge, Manendragarh  being<\/p>\n<p>excessive  should be reduced to atleast  Rs.1250\/-  per<\/p>\n<p>month.  No other ground was urged.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>7.    No one appeared for the respondent at the time of<\/p>\n<p>final hearing.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>8.    Having  considered  the  submissions  of  learned<\/p>\n<p>counsel  for  the  appellant,  the  only  point   which<\/p>\n<p>requires consideration is whether the permanent alimony<\/p>\n<p>awarded by the 2nd Additional District Judge is  liable<\/p>\n<p>to be reduced.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   Section 25 of the Act, 1955 reads as under:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>         &#8220;25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.&#8211;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>    &#8211;  (1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under<br \/>\n    this  Act  may,  at the time  of  passing  any<br \/>\n    decree  or at any time subsequent thereto,  on<br \/>\n    application  made  to it for  the  purpose  by<br \/>\n    either  the wife or the husband, as  the  case<br \/>\n    may be, order that the respondent shall pay to<br \/>\n    the  applicant for her or his maintenance  and<br \/>\n    support  such  gross sum or  such  monthly  or<br \/>\n    periodical  sum for a term not  exceeding  the<br \/>\n    life of the applicant as, having regard to the<br \/>\n    respondent&#8217;s own income and other property, if<br \/>\n    any,  the  income  and other property  of  the<br \/>\n    applicant,  the  conduct of  the  parties  and<br \/>\n    other  circumstances of the case, it may  seem<br \/>\n    to  the court to be just, and any such payment<br \/>\n    may  be secured, if necessary, by a charge  on<br \/>\n    the immoveable property of the respondent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          (2) If the court is satisfied that there<br \/>\n    is  a  change in the circumstances  of  either<br \/>\n    party  at any time after it has made an  order<br \/>\n    under  sub-section (1), it may at the instance<br \/>\n    of  either party, vary, modify or rescind  any<br \/>\n    such  order  in such manner as the  court  may<br \/>\n    deem just.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          (3)  If the court is satisfied that  the<br \/>\n    party  in whose favour an order has been  made<br \/>\n    under this section has re-married or, if  such<br \/>\n    party  is  the wife, that she has not remained<br \/>\n    chaste, or, if such party is the husband, that<br \/>\n    he  has had sexual intercourse with any  woman<br \/>\n    outside wedlock, it may at the instance of the<br \/>\n    other  party vary, modify or rescind any  such<br \/>\n    order  in  such manner as the court  may  deem<br \/>\n    just.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>A  perusal  of the above provision makes it clear  that<\/p>\n<p>any  court  exercising  jurisdiction  under  the  Hindu<\/p>\n<p>Marriage  Act, before granting permanent alimony  under<\/p>\n<p>Section 25 of the Act, 1955 is required to consider the<\/p>\n<p>following:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>    a)  that  the  order granting permanent alimony  is<br \/>\n        made  at  the time of passing any decree  under<br \/>\n        the   Act,  1955  or  at  any  time  subsequent<br \/>\n        thereto,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>    b)  the   income   and   other  property   of   the<br \/>\n        applicant,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>    c)  the   respondent&#8217;s   own   income   and   other<br \/>\n        property,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>    d)  the conduct of the parties and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>    e)  other circumstances of the case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>10.  In the present case, admittedly, Civil Suit No. 2-<\/p>\n<p>A  of 89 instituted by the appellant for restitution of<\/p>\n<p>conjugal   rights  was  dismissed  by  the   Additional<\/p>\n<p>District   Judge,  Manendragarh  vide  judgment   dated<\/p>\n<p>25.09.1990.  It is seen that the appellant has, despite<\/p>\n<p>the  fact  that  he had four children  from  the  first<\/p>\n<p>marriage  with  the  respondent,  shamelessly   married<\/p>\n<p>another lady namely Sita Devi during the subsistence of<\/p>\n<p>the  first marriage and has two children from  her.  It<\/p>\n<p>also  appears  that since the respondent\/plaintiff  was<\/p>\n<p>unable  to  maintain herself, she did  not  oppose  the<\/p>\n<p>custody  of  her children being given to the applicant.<\/p>\n<p>It  is  also  pertinent  to note  the  conduct  of  the<\/p>\n<p>appellant.     On being asked about the maintenance  of<\/p>\n<p>his   children  from  the  marital  wedlock  with   the<\/p>\n<p>respondent\/plaintiff deposed that &#8220;lqaoj dqRrs ds cPpsa<\/p>\n<p>ikys tkrs gS rks ;g Hkh iy tk;saxs&#8221;.  It is also not in<\/p>\n<p>dispute    that    despite   the    fact    that    the<\/p>\n<p>respondent\/plaintiff  is living at  her  maternal  home<\/p>\n<p>since  more than 15 years, the appellant has  not  even<\/p>\n<p>paid the niggardly amount of maintenance awarded to the<\/p>\n<p>respondent\/plaintiff in proceedings under  Section  125<\/p>\n<p>of Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>11.   The appellant did admit in his testimony that his<\/p>\n<p>monthly gross salary in the month of November, 2006 was <\/p>\n<p>Rs.9985.97.   His net monthly salary is  proved  to  be<\/p>\n<p>Rs.7009\/-  from  the pay slip Ex.D.2.  As  regards  the<\/p>\n<p>appellant&#8217;s pleadings that the respondent\/plaintiff was<\/p>\n<p>able  to maintain herself from the income derived  from<\/p>\n<p>tailoring, knitting and also from the poultry business,<\/p>\n<p>there  is  no evidence to substantiate the  same.   Not<\/p>\n<p>only  this,  the  appellant did not  depose  about  the<\/p>\n<p>amount  earned  by  the  respondent  from  the  alleged<\/p>\n<p>poultry  business.  Dhruv Pal N.A.W.2, witness for  the<\/p>\n<p>appellant,  also admitted in paragraph 19 that  he  had<\/p>\n<p>not  seen  poultry  farm in village Jhagrakhand.   Gita<\/p>\n<p>Devi  A.W.1,  mother  of the respondent\/plaintiff  also<\/p>\n<p>deposed that the work of poultry was closed because the<\/p>\n<p>chickens  died.  She has specifically denied  that  the<\/p>\n<p>respondent was having any income from poultry farm.<\/p>\n<p>12.   Considering  the  facts and  circumstances  which<\/p>\n<p>compelled  the respondent\/plaintiff to live  separately<\/p>\n<p>from her husband, the conduct of the appellant and  the<\/p>\n<p>undisputed net salary of the appellant as also the fact<\/p>\n<p>that the respondent was unable to maintain herself  and<\/p>\n<p>did not have any income from the occupations alleged by<\/p>\n<p>the  appellant,  I  am of the considered  opinion  that<\/p>\n<p>monthly permanent alimony of Rs.2,000\/- awarded by  the <\/p>\n<p>2nd  Additional  District Judge, Manendragarh,  to  the<\/p>\n<p>respondent\/plaintiff  being  the   bare   minimum   for<\/p>\n<p>survival, no interference is called for.<\/p>\n<p>13.  In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.<\/p>\n<p>Judge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Shekhar Chouhan vs Geeta Devi on 17 August, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FAM No 10 of 2007 Shekhar Chouhan &#8230;Petitioner VERSUS Geeta Devi &#8230;Respondent ! Shri Pankaj Shrivastava counsel for the appellant ^ No one appears for the respondent Honble Shri Justice Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Dated: 17\/08\/2007 [&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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47120","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-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>Shekhar Chouhan vs Geeta Devi on 17 August, 2007 - 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\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shekhar Chouhan vs Geeta Devi on 17 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-07T01:08:50+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\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shekhar Chouhan vs Geeta Devi on 17 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-07T01:08:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1206,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007\",\"name\":\"Shekhar Chouhan vs Geeta Devi on 17 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-07T01:08:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shekhar Chouhan vs Geeta Devi on 17 August, 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:\/\/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":"Shekhar Chouhan vs Geeta Devi on 17 August, 2007 - 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\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shekhar Chouhan vs Geeta Devi on 17 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-07T01:08:50+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\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shekhar Chouhan vs Geeta Devi on 17 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-07T01:08:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007"},"wordCount":1206,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007","name":"Shekhar Chouhan vs Geeta Devi on 17 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-07T01:08:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shekhar-chouhan-vs-geeta-devi-on-17-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shekhar Chouhan vs Geeta Devi on 17 August, 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:\/\/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\/47120","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=47120"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47120\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47120"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47120"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47120"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}