{"id":53299,"date":"2003-12-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-12-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003"},"modified":"2017-06-08T02:31:47","modified_gmt":"2017-06-07T21:01:47","slug":"j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003","title":{"rendered":"J.S.Chitharanjan vs Dr.S.Usha Kalyani on 19 December, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">J.S.Chitharanjan vs Dr.S.Usha Kalyani on 19 December, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 19\/12\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.PACKIARAJ\n\nCRL.R.C.No.1529 of 2002\n\nJ.S.Chitharanjan                               .. Petitioner.\n\n-Vs-\n\n\nDr.S.Usha Kalyani                              .. Respondent.\n\n\n!For Petitioner : Mr.A.Raghunathan for\n                  Mr.V.Sairam\n\n^For Respondent : Mr.S.Ananthanarayanan\n\n        PRAYER:  Revision against the order passed  by  the  VII  Metropolitan\nMagistrate, George Town, Madras dated 11.06.202 in Crl.M.P.No.1800 of 20 02 in\nC.C.No.7919 of 1998.\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>        This revision has been filed against  the  order  passed  by  the  VII<br \/>\nMetropolitan  Magistrate,  George  Town,  Madras in Crl.M.P.No.1800 of 2002 in<br \/>\nC.C.No.7919 of 1998, declining to discharge the accused\/ petitioner  from  the<br \/>\nprivate  complaint preferred by the complainant\/respondent of an offence under<br \/>\nSection 500 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   The circumstances under which the said order came to be passed is<br \/>\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>                a) The  respondent\/complaint  is  a  Lecturer  in  English  in<br \/>\nBharathiar College for Women, Madras and hails from a respectable family.  She<br \/>\nwas  married  to  the accused\/petitioner herein and out their wedlock a female<br \/>\nchild was born, but unfortunately the marriage tie broke up and due to certain<br \/>\nthings happened in the course of their wedlock,  she  was  forced  to  give  a<br \/>\ncomplaint against her husband for offences under Section 420 and 406 IPC.  The<br \/>\ndetails  of  which  are  totally not necessary for the purpose of disposing of<br \/>\nthis revision, suffice to state that the said complaint was filed  before  the<br \/>\nAdditional  Chief  Metropolitan  Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, who referred the<br \/>\nmatter to the Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai.  The Crime Branch on  receipt  of<br \/>\nthe same,   registered   a   case   and   investigated   the   matter.     The<br \/>\naccused\/petitioner  being  afraid  that  he  may  be   arrested   sought   for<br \/>\nAnticipatory   Bail   before   this   Court   by   filing  an  application  in<br \/>\nCrl.O.P.No.8639 of 1998.  Notice was given only to the Public  Prosecutor  and<br \/>\nwhen  the  matter  came  up  for hearing, the complainant\/respondent sought to<br \/>\nimplead herself by engaging a counsel to appose the  said  application.    The<br \/>\ncounsel  for  the accused\/petitioner sought time and filed an affidavit of the<br \/>\npetitioner on the next hearing in support of the application for  Anticipatory<br \/>\nBail.  In the said affidavit, the following averments have been made<br \/>\n        &#8220;10.   I state that in the month of July 1986 Usha Kalyani brought the<br \/>\nsaid Abdul Razack to the house and when I suddenly went  home  for  lunch  and<br \/>\nfound  the  motor  bike  I  was under the impression that my friend would have<br \/>\ncome.  The door was closed and I range the bell.  Since  there  was  no  power<br \/>\nsupply  at  that  time,  I  went  to the back yard to see if I could call Usha<br \/>\nKalyani.  When I peeped in through the window,  I  saw  that  the  said  Abdul<br \/>\nRazack having  sexual intercourse with Usha Kalyani.  After seeing me the said<br \/>\nAbdul Razack fled and I had a mental shock.  From that day onwards, I  refused<br \/>\nto  have marital relationship with Usha Kalyani and I had to tolerate this for<br \/>\nthe sake of my daughter Ramya.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.   I  further  state  that  in  furtherance  to  this  I   gathered<br \/>\ninformation and found that Usha Kalyani has continued sexual relationship with<br \/>\nmany  persons  including  Aslam  and Assistant Flight person, Indian Airlines,<br \/>\nresiding at Anna Nagar and Kalyanaraman working at Bombay.  I also got several<br \/>\ninformation that many persons were visiting my house in my absence.   When  my<br \/>\ndaughter  was 9 years old in the year 1992 she herself witnessed her mother in<br \/>\nbed with a stranger and informed me about the same.  When  I  questioned  Usha<br \/>\nKalyani  she  physically assaulted my daughter and starved my daughter for two<br \/>\nfull days and I had to admit her in the hospital.  Several alcohol were  found<br \/>\nin  my  wife&#8217;s  cup  board  and  later I was informed by my daughter that Usha<br \/>\nKalyani has the habit of consuming alcohol regularly&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                b)  According  to   the   complainant\/respondent   the   above<br \/>\nimputations  were  made  in  the  affidavit by the accused\/petitioner with the<br \/>\nintention to harm the reputation, knowing fully well that the  same  is  false<br \/>\nand  had  been  made  made  with  the  intention  to malign her reputation and<br \/>\ncharacter.  Hence, the  complainant\/respondent  filed  the  present  complaint<br \/>\nbefore  the  VII  Metropolitan  Magistrate  for  the  offence punishable under<br \/>\nSection 500 IPC against the accused\/petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>                c) On appearance the accused\/petitioner filed a  petition  for<br \/>\ndischarge  taking  up a plea that the averments made in the affidavit would be<br \/>\nprotected under Exception 8 and 9 of Section 499 IPC.   However,  the  learned<br \/>\nMagistrate  dismissed  the said petition on the ground that the exceptions has<br \/>\nto be necessarily pleaded during  the  course  of  the  trial  and  cannot  be<br \/>\npre-judged.  It is against this order, the present revision has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   The  imputations  made in the affidavit by the accused\/petitioner<br \/>\nprima facie is defamatory and there is no quarrel and rightly so no  arguments<br \/>\nwere advanced  in relation to that.  But the learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\naccused\/petitioner  would  only  say  that  this  will  certainly  come  under<br \/>\nException  8  and  9 of Section 499 IPC and hence the complaint deserves to be<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  In support of his contention, the learned counsel first took me to<br \/>\nException 8 of Section 499 IPC IPC, which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;It is not imputation to prefer in good faith  an  accusation  against<br \/>\nany  person  to  any  of those who have lawful authority over that person with<br \/>\nrespect to the subject of accusation.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  Furtherance to it, Exception 9 of Section 499 IPC was  also  taken<br \/>\nthrough by the learned counsel, which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;It  is  not  defamation  to  make  an  imputation on the character of<br \/>\nanother, provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection<br \/>\nof the interest of the person making it, or for any other person, or  for  the<br \/>\npublic good.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.   While  referring  to the above stated two exceptions, the learned<br \/>\ncounsel would stress more on Exception 9 of Section 499 IPC, wherein  the  law<br \/>\nsays  that  imputation made on the character of another, if made in good faith<br \/>\nfor the protection of the interest of person making  it,  is  not  defamation.<br \/>\nAccording  to  the learned counsel the imputation in this case was made by the<br \/>\naccused\/petitioner in the affidavit filed before the High Court to only  bring<br \/>\nit  to  the  notice  of  the  Court that &#8220;can the words of such a woman of bad<br \/>\nvirtues be believed and Anticipatory Bail should be  rejected  and  that  this<br \/>\nstatement  would  not  have  been  made  had  not the defacto complainant (the<br \/>\npresent complainant) sought intervention in the bail application.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  Just because the complainant\/respondent came as an  intervenor  in<br \/>\nthe  application preferred by the accused\/petitioner seeking bail, it does not<br \/>\nmean to say that he had a right to  accuse  about  her  moral  virtues,  which<br \/>\naccording to  her  is totally false.  The accused\/ petitioner cannot escape or<br \/>\ngo without being challenged claiming that it has been done in good  faith  and<br \/>\nin the protection of the interest of the person making it.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  A reading of Exception 9 of Section 499 IPC would only reveal that<br \/>\nsuch  an  accusation  is not an imputation, provided, it has been made in good<br \/>\nfaith.  Here, the word provided has to be necessarily given a meaning.  So, my<br \/>\nreading of the exception clause would be to say that  the  imputation  on  the<br \/>\ncharacter  of  another  is  definitely a defamation, unless that imputation be<br \/>\nproved or established that it has been made in good faith for  the  protection<br \/>\nof  the  interest  of  the  person  making  it,  which means that it has to be<br \/>\nnecessarily shown in the course of trial that the imputation has been made  in<br \/>\ngood faith.    Therefore,  I  am  not  inclined  to accept the argument of the<br \/>\nlearned counsel as far as the claiming of  protection  under  Exception  9  of<br \/>\nSection 499 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.   The  next ground of attack is that it has been done in good faith<br \/>\nbefore a lawful authority.   Thus  the  question  as  to  who  is  the  lawful<br \/>\nauthority has  to  be  decided.    In the Anticipatory application, the lawful<br \/>\nauthority was the High court,  but  there  the  subject  matter  was  only  in<br \/>\nrelation to an offence under Section 406 and 420 IPC.  In effect, the position<br \/>\nis  that  the  application  before  the lawful authority has been made only to<br \/>\ngrant Anticipatory Bail for the grounds raised by him and the  subject  matter<br \/>\nof the present complaint, which shows the attack made on chastity and morality<br \/>\nis not  the  subject matter in the Anticipatory Bail application.  Even though<br \/>\nthe defacto complainant had intervened in the said application and opposed the<br \/>\nsame, it is only with  reference  to  the  offence  in  that  application  the<br \/>\nobjection has  been  made.    On  the  otherhand, if her chastity had been the<br \/>\nsubject matter before the lawful authority and if an accusation has been  made<br \/>\nin respect of that then it could very well be said that an accusation has been<br \/>\nmade  before  the  lawful  authority, who is called upon to decide that issue.<br \/>\nBut in that application there was no reason at all for him to have accused her<br \/>\nin so many words.  Therefore, here again my reading in respect of Exception  8<br \/>\nis  that  if  an  accusation  has been made against any person, who has lawful<br \/>\nauthority means the lawful authority who is to decide that particular issue of<br \/>\nthe  matter,  which  relates  to  defamatory  in  character  and  not  matters<br \/>\nincidental thereto.   Therefore, what comes to be known from the above is that<br \/>\nif something has been stated about the facts of offence under Section 406  and<br \/>\n420 IPC,  it  may  well  be  said  to  be protected.  But to accuse her of her<br \/>\nmorality and say that she should not be believed, is a matter which has to  be<br \/>\nnecessarily tried and decided only after a full-fledged trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.   The  learned counsel appearing for the accused\/petitioner relied<br \/>\non a decision of the Delhi High Court reported in Pabitra Pradhan Vs.    State<br \/>\nof  Orissa  (2002(1) Crimes 593) wherein His Lordship Justice Agarwal has held<br \/>\nto the effect that where it is apparent that the imputation was made  in  good<br \/>\nfaith  by  the  petitioner  to  get  the order of summoning quashing, the same<br \/>\ncannot be said to have been made with intention or knowledge to cause harm  to<br \/>\nthe reputation  of petitioner.  I am afraid that the said decision will not be<br \/>\nof help to the accused\/ petitioner herein, since that  is  a  case  where  the<br \/>\nallegations  of  the offence punishable under Section 499 IPC was made and the<br \/>\nsubject matter of the imputation was in relation to  that  particular  offence<br \/>\nand  the  Apex  court  was  the  lawful  authority  to  decide  that issue and<br \/>\ntherefore, the Delhi High Court has  held  that  it  was  apparent  and  hence<br \/>\nprotected him  under  Exception 8.  But in the case on hand, this Court in the<br \/>\nAnticipatory Bail application was not called upon to decide  whether  she  was<br \/>\nimmoral or  not.    The subject matter of the issue before this Court was only<br \/>\nfor  an  offence  under  Section  406  and  420  IPC,  in   which   case   the<br \/>\naccused\/petitioner has no reason to file such an affidavit.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.   The  learned counsel appearing for the complainant\/respondent on<br \/>\nhis side relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in M.N.   Damani  Vs.<br \/>\nS.K.Sinha and  others (2001 Crl.L.N.  2571), wherein Their Lordships have held<br \/>\nthat it is not the province of this Court to  appreciate  at  this  stage  the<br \/>\nevidence or  scope of and meaning of the statement.  Further they went to hold<br \/>\nthat the High Court cannot at this stage say  that  there  was  no  reasonable<br \/>\nprospect  of  conviction  resulting  in  case  after  trial and that questions<br \/>\nwhether imputations were made on good faith, in what circumstances, with  what<br \/>\nintention etc.,  are  to be examined on the basis of the evidence in trial.  I<br \/>\nmost respectfully agree with the said proposition and  therefore,  I  have  no<br \/>\nhesitation to  dismiss  this revision.  However, it is open for the respondent<br \/>\nto claim the benefit of Exception 8 and 9 of Section 499 IPC as the  case  may<br \/>\nbe during the course of trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.   Apart  from the above, yet another broad factor which remains to<br \/>\nbe answered is that when the accusation has been made against the  complainant<br \/>\nin a proceedings and if it is said that it has been made in good faith without<br \/>\na  trial  after and the proceedings has been quashed, the said accusation goes<br \/>\nunchallenged.  Further,  the  question,  will  not  the  aggrieved  person  be<br \/>\nentitled to erase the shabby comments on her.  It is more in the light of this<br \/>\nthat  I  am not inclined to go into the factual question without a trial being<br \/>\nproceeded to decide that it has been done in good faith.   Therefore,  on  the<br \/>\nabove  premise,  I  feel  that  there  are  no merits in this revision and the<br \/>\nrevision is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>csh<\/p>\n<p>Index:Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The VII Metropolitan Magistrate,<br \/>\nGeorge Town, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  -Do- Thro&#8217; The Chief Metropolitan<br \/>\nMagistrate, Egmore, Chennai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court J.S.Chitharanjan vs Dr.S.Usha Kalyani on 19 December, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19\/12\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.PACKIARAJ CRL.R.C.No.1529 of 2002 J.S.Chitharanjan .. Petitioner. -Vs- Dr.S.Usha Kalyani .. Respondent. !For Petitioner : Mr.A.Raghunathan for Mr.V.Sairam ^For Respondent : Mr.S.Ananthanarayanan PRAYER: Revision against the order passed by the [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-53299","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>J.S.Chitharanjan vs Dr.S.Usha Kalyani on 19 December, 2003 - 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\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"J.S.Chitharanjan vs Dr.S.Usha Kalyani on 19 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-07T21:01:47+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"J.S.Chitharanjan vs Dr.S.Usha Kalyani on 19 December, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-07T21:01:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2086,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003\",\"name\":\"J.S.Chitharanjan vs Dr.S.Usha Kalyani on 19 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-07T21:01:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"J.S.Chitharanjan vs Dr.S.Usha Kalyani on 19 December, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"J.S.Chitharanjan vs Dr.S.Usha Kalyani on 19 December, 2003 - 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\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"J.S.Chitharanjan vs Dr.S.Usha Kalyani on 19 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-07T21:01:47+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"J.S.Chitharanjan vs Dr.S.Usha Kalyani on 19 December, 2003","datePublished":"2003-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-07T21:01:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003"},"wordCount":2086,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003","name":"J.S.Chitharanjan vs Dr.S.Usha Kalyani on 19 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-07T21:01:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-s-chitharanjan-vs-dr-s-usha-kalyani-on-19-december-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"J.S.Chitharanjan vs Dr.S.Usha Kalyani on 19 December, 2003"}]},{"@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\/53299","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=53299"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53299\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53299"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53299"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53299"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}