{"id":48270,"date":"2008-06-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008"},"modified":"2015-07-25T11:26:10","modified_gmt":"2015-07-25T05:56:10","slug":"k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"K.K.Mary vs K.Mohanan on 16 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.K.Mary vs K.Mohanan on 16 June, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 3212 of 2006()\n\n\n1. K.K.MARY, W\/O.K.P.RAMAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. K.MOHANAN, S\/O.KUNHUKUNHU,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.N.J.ANTONY\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\n\n Dated :16\/06\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                              V.RAMKUMAR, J.\n                  .................................................\n                     Crl.R.P. No.         3212 of 2006\n                                         &\n                    Crl.R.P. No. 1909 of 2008\n                   ................................................\n                           Dated: 16-06-2008\n\n                                   O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      In these Revision        Petitions filed under Section 397 read with<\/p>\n
Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the common petitioner who was the accused in C.C.<\/p>\n
No. 493 of 2001 on the file of the J.F.C.M.I , Sulthan Bathery, for an<\/p>\n
offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,<\/p>\n
1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and                      who was the<\/p>\n
complainant in    C.C. No. 52 of 2005 on the file of the J.F.C.M.II,<\/p>\n
Sulthan Bathery respectively,         for offences punishable under Sections<\/p>\n
468 and 471 I.P.C., challenges              the conviction         entered and the<\/p>\n
sentence passed against         him      in C.C. No. 493 of 2001 and the<\/p>\n
dismissal of C.C. 52 of 2005 filed by him.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and<\/p>\n
the learned Public Prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner<\/p>\n
re-iterated the contentions in support of the Revisions. The courts<\/p>\n
below have concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 3212 of 2006
\n&<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 1909 of 2008             -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
by the petitioner in favour of the complainant on the drawee bank,<\/p>\n
that the cheque was validly presented to the bank, that it was<\/p>\n
dishonoured for reasons which fall under Section 138 of the Act, that<\/p>\n
the complainant made a demand for payment by a notice in time in<\/p>\n
accordance with clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act<\/p>\n
and that the Revision Petitioner\/accused failed to make the payment<\/p>\n
within 15 days of receipt of the statutory notice.<\/p>\n
         4.      The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
made the following further submissions before me:-<\/p>\n
         This is a case in which the accused in C.C. No. 493 of 2001 had<\/p>\n
lodged a complaint before the Sulthan Bathery police alleging forgery<\/p>\n
of the cheque by the complainant and alleging commission of offences<\/p>\n
punishable under Sections 468 and 471 I.P.C. Eventhough the police<\/p>\n
registered the case as Crime No. 297 of 2002 and charge-sheeted<\/p>\n
the complainant, the said case being a counter case to the present<\/p>\n
prosecution was not disposed of by the Magistrate along with the<\/p>\n
present case            numbered as  C.C.   No. 493 of 2001.    After the<\/p>\n
authoritative pronouncement          by the Apex Court in the decisions<\/p>\n
reported in           AIR 2001 S.C. 826 – Sudhir and Others v. State of<\/p>\n
Madhya Pradesh and Nathi Lal v. State of U.P. – 1990 SCC<\/p>\n
145, the case and counter case which are also called cross cases<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 3212 of 2006
\n&<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 1909 of 2008          -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
should be disposed of by the same court one after          another and<\/p>\n
judgment pronounced in quick succession      so that the whole case is<\/p>\n
before the very same court which has an opportunity to get a complete<\/p>\n
perspective of the rival contentions. The J.F.C.M. I, Sulthan Bathery<\/p>\n
who tried the present case as C.C. No. 493 of 2001 ought to have<\/p>\n
taken steps to see that C.C. No. 401 of 2002          subsequently re-<\/p>\n
registered as C.C. No.      52 of 2005   on the file of the J.F.C.M. II,<\/p>\n
Sulthan Bathery was also tried along with this case so that there was<\/p>\n
no failure of justice. The case of the revision petitioner was that on<\/p>\n
18-9-1993 and on 30-09-1993, she had borrowed Rs. 15,000\/- each<\/p>\n
totalling to Rs. 30,000\/- from the complainant      and    had given a<\/p>\n
signed blank cheque by way of security and the said cheque         was<\/p>\n
forged into the present one showing a sum of Rs. 95,000\/- by the<\/p>\n
complainant . Her further case is that she had discharged the above<\/p>\n
loan of Rs. 30,000\/- between 1993 and 1997. Exts. D1 to D5 letters<\/p>\n
issued by the complainant to the husband of the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner\/accused will go to show that the transaction was really<\/p>\n
between her husband and the complainant and the amount borrowed<\/p>\n
was only Rs. 30,000\/- and he was going on increasing the interest<\/p>\n
payable on the said amount of Rs. 30,000\/-. It was on account of the<\/p>\n
close relationship between the parties that the revision petitioner did<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 3212 of 2006
\n&<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 1909 of 2008              -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
not take the trouble of getting back the cheque after discharging the<\/p>\n
loan of Rs. 30,000\/- borrowed by her. When the matter was pending<\/p>\n
in appeal before the lower appellate Court, she had filed a petition for<\/p>\n
sending the cheque to the handwriting expert         opinion as to whether<\/p>\n
the writings other than the signature in the cheque were not forged or<\/p>\n
not. The said petition was rejected by the lower appellate court for no<\/p>\n
valid reason.\n<\/p>\n
         5.      I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above<\/p>\n
submissions. Going by the case of the complainant,           amounts were<\/p>\n
borrowed on 11-7-1999 and 22-8-99 and it was in discharge of the<\/p>\n
said liability that the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs. 95,000\/-.<\/p>\n
As against this,          the version of the accused was that it was her<\/p>\n
husband Raman examined as D.W.4 who was the borrower and the<\/p>\n
amount borrowed by him was only Rs. 30,000\/- and it was at the time<\/p>\n
of the said borrowal         that a signed blank cheuqe of the accused was<\/p>\n
handed over to the complainant by way of security.             If the said<\/p>\n
transaction was closed by either the revision petitioner or her husband<\/p>\n
discharging the entire amount by 1997, an explanation was due from<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner as to why she allowed           the cheque to be<\/p>\n
retained by the complainant for four years after which C.C. 493 of<\/p>\n
2001 was filed by the complainant. Of course, the complainant is none<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 3212 of 2006
\n&<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 1909 of 2008              -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
other than the husband of the sister of the revision petitioner. But<\/p>\n
then if the relationship was one of complete trust and confidence on<\/p>\n
account of the close relationship between the revision petitioner and<\/p>\n
the complainant , one would not have expected the complainant to<\/p>\n
insist on a cheque from the revision petitioner. Hence, the explanation<\/p>\n
that it was on account of the close relationship that she did not care to<\/p>\n
take back the cheque from the complainant after discharging the<\/p>\n
liability cannot be believed for a moment.\n<\/p>\n
         6.      The complaint in this case was filed on 28-12-2001. The<\/p>\n
revision petitioner lodged a complaint before the Sulthan Bathery<\/p>\n
police only in the year 2002 alleging that Ext.P1 cheque was forged by<\/p>\n
the complainant           and  that the complainant thereby committed<\/p>\n
offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 I.P.C. Eventhough<\/p>\n
the said case was registered as C.C. 401 of 2002, no attempt was<\/p>\n
made before the J.F.C.M. I, Sulthan Batheri to appraise the Magistrate<\/p>\n
about the pendency of C.C. 401 of 2002 before the J.F.C.M. II,<\/p>\n
Suolthan Bathery. On the contrary, the present case namely C.C. 493<\/p>\n
of 2001 was allowed to be tried without any demur.          The argument<\/p>\n
that the Magistrate should have taken steps to get C.C. No.401 of<\/p>\n
2002 transferred from the file of the J.F.C.M.II to his Court for the<\/p>\n
purpose of consolidation and joint trial cannot be accepted. There is<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 3212 of 2006
\n&<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 1909 of 2008              -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
no such duty cast on the Magistrate to call for the files from another<\/p>\n
court to enable the Magistrate to try the case along with a case already<\/p>\n
pending before him on the ground that one of the parties contends<\/p>\n
that both the cases are cross cases to be jointly tried and disposed<\/p>\n
of.      Nothing prevented the revision petitioner from           moving the<\/p>\n
superior courts for transfer of C.C. 401 of 2002 from the file of<\/p>\n
J.F.C.M. II to the file of J.F.C.M. I.     If as a matter of fact, C.C. 401 of<\/p>\n
2002 was liable to be tried along with C.C. 493 of 2001 and even<\/p>\n
after appraising the Magistrate about the pendency of the other case<\/p>\n
the Magistrate proceeded to try C.C. 493 of 2001               the petitioner<\/p>\n
should have either moved the Sessions Court or                this Court   for<\/p>\n
successive         trial of the two cases and until then     he should have<\/p>\n
applied for a stay of the trial of C.C. 493 of 2001. No such attempt<\/p>\n
was made. On the contrary, C.C. 493 of 2001 was tried without any<\/p>\n
objection from the revision petitioner.         After he was convicted and<\/p>\n
sentenced by the trial court he had preferred an appeal before the<\/p>\n
Sessions Court as Crl. Appeal 5 of 2004           before the Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
Wayanad . In that appeal also it was not contended that the trial court<\/p>\n
went wrong in not disposing of the alleged counter case namely C.C.<\/p>\n
401 of 2002 along with C.C. 493 of 2001.             It is for the first time<\/p>\n
before this Court that the petitioner has raised such a contention<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 3212 of 2006
\n&<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 1909 of 2008             -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
which is only to be rejected and I do so.\n<\/p>\n
         7.      The other contention that the petition filed by the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner before the lower appellate court for sending the cheque in<\/p>\n
question for expert opinion             also does not deserve serious<\/p>\n
consideration. Ext.P1 is admittedly a cheque given           by the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner to the complainant and it contains his signature also. Of<\/p>\n
course, according to her it was only a signed blank cheque offered as<\/p>\n
a security. If it was offered as a security to be made use of by the<\/p>\n
complainant upon the revision petitioner committing default in<\/p>\n
repaying the loan, then it is to be presumed that            it contains   an<\/p>\n
implied authority to the complainant to use the cheque as a negotiable<\/p>\n
instrument in the event of default by the accused. Except contending<\/p>\n
that she had discharged the liability with regard to an earlier loan<\/p>\n
taken from the complainant, no scrap of paper was produced in<\/p>\n
support of the plea of discharge. The revision petitioner would have<\/p>\n
been the best person to substantiate her contention that the loan<\/p>\n
which was availed of from the complainant was only Rs. 30,000\/- and<\/p>\n
she had discharged the same. But, for reasons best known to her, she<\/p>\n
did not mount the witness box.             Instead her husband alone was<\/p>\n
examined as D.W.4. Even on her own admission Ext.P1 cheque was<\/p>\n
given as a signed          blank cheque undertaking the       liability of her<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 3212 of 2006
\n&<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 1909 of 2008             -:8:-<\/span><\/p>\n
husband who according to her was            the person who borrowed the<\/p>\n
amount. If so, the prosecution of the revision petitioner under SEc.<\/p>\n
138 of the N.I. Act was fully justified.\n<\/p>\n
         8.      With regard to the alleged counter case initiated at the<\/p>\n
instance of the revision petitioner, it was numbered as C.C. 401 of<\/p>\n
2002 and re-registered as C.C. 52 of 2005 on the file of the J.F.C.M.<\/p>\n
II, Sulthan Bathery.       That court after trial, has acquitted the accused<\/p>\n
therein who is the complainant in C.C. 493 of 2001 under Sec. 248 (1)<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. as per judgment dated 27-9-2007. The said acquittal is also<\/p>\n
after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the<\/p>\n
case. It is too late in the day for the revision petitioner to canvass the<\/p>\n
correctness of the said acquittal on the ground that C.C. No. 52 of<\/p>\n
2005 ought to have been tried along with C.C. 493 of 2001 which<\/p>\n
was tried without any objection           before the J.F.C.M. I,     Sulthan<\/p>\n
Bathery.\n<\/p>\n
         9.         C.C. 52 of 2005 was thus rightly dismissed by the<\/p>\n
Magistrate and no interference is called for. Crl.R.P. No. 1909 of 2008<\/p>\n
is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
          10. Both the courts have considered and rejected the defence<\/p>\n
set up by the revision petitioner while entering the finding of guilt in<\/p>\n
C.C. 493 of 2001.            The said finding has been recorded on an<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 3212 of 2006
\n&<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 1909 of 2008              -:9:-<\/span><\/p>\n
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence. I do not find any<\/p>\n
error, illegality or impropriety in the finding so recorded concurrently<\/p>\n
by the courts below. The conviction was thus rightly entered against<\/p>\n
the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
         11.        What now survives for consideration is the question as to<\/p>\n
whether what should be the proper sentence to be imposed on the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of<\/p>\n
the case, I am inclined to modify the sentence imposed on the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner. In the light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
Ettappadan Ahammedkutty v. E.P. Abdullakoya – 2008 (1) KLT<\/p>\n
851 default sentence cannot be imposed for the enforcement of an<\/p>\n
order for compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, for<\/p>\n
the conviction under Section 138 of the Act the revision petitioner is<\/p>\n
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 95,000\/- (Rupees ninety five<\/p>\n
thousand only) The said fine shall be paid as compensation under<\/p>\n
Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C.       The revision petitioner is permitted either to<\/p>\n
deposit the said fine amount before the Court below or directly pay<\/p>\n
the compensation to the complainant within four months from today<\/p>\n
and produce a memo to that effect before the trial Court in case of<\/p>\n
direct payment. If he fails to deposit or pay the said amount within<\/p>\n
the aforementioned period he shall suffer simple imprisonment for<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 3212 of 2006
\n&<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. No. 1909 of 2008            -:10:-<\/span><\/p>\n
three months by way of default sentence.\n<\/p>\n
         In the result, Crl.R.P. 3212 of 2006 is disposed of confirming the<\/p>\n
conviction         entered but modifying the sentence     imposed on the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner and Crl.R.P. No. 1909 of 2008 is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                             Sd\/-V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
                                  \/true copy\/<\/p>\n
ani\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.K.Mary vs K.Mohanan on 16 June, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3212 of 2006() 1. K.K.MARY, W\/O.K.P.RAMAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. K.MOHANAN, S\/O.KUNHUKUNHU, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ For Respondent :SRI.N.J.ANTONY The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR Dated :16\/06\/2008 O R […]<\/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-48270","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.K.Mary vs K.Mohanan on 16 June, 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\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.K.Mary vs K.Mohanan on 16 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-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=\"2008-06-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-25T05:56:10+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.K.Mary vs K.Mohanan on 16 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-25T05:56:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2242,\"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\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008\",\"name\":\"K.K.Mary vs K.Mohanan on 16 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-25T05:56:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.K.Mary vs K.Mohanan on 16 June, 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":"K.K.Mary vs K.Mohanan on 16 June, 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\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.K.Mary vs K.Mohanan on 16 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-25T05:56:10+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.K.Mary vs K.Mohanan on 16 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-25T05:56:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008"},"wordCount":2242,"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\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008","name":"K.K.Mary vs K.Mohanan on 16 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-25T05:56:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-k-mary-vs-k-mohanan-on-16-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.K.Mary vs K.Mohanan on 16 June, 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\/48270","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=48270"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48270\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48270"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48270"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48270"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}