{"id":54410,"date":"2009-02-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009"},"modified":"2019-02-16T06:44:08","modified_gmt":"2019-02-16T01:14:08","slug":"smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Smt.Prameela vs Dr.Raj Kumar on 4 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Smt.Prameela vs Dr.Raj Kumar on 4 February, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMFA.No. 956 of 2002(E)\n\n\n1. SMT.PRAMEELA,D\/O.SREEMATHI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. KUMARI.SREELAKSHMI (MINOR),\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. DR.RAJ KUMAR,S\/O.LATE DR.SREENIVASAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR\n\n Dated :04\/02\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                  P.R. RAMAN & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.\n                 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                         M.F.A. NO. 956 OF 2002\n                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n         DATED THIS, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009.\n\n                             J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Raman, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      Appellant, along with her minor child filed O.P. 205\/2000 before the<\/p>\n
Family Court, Manjeri, for a decree for a amount of Rs. 2,34,000\/- with 15%<\/p>\n
interest and for return of 100 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Besides, they<\/p>\n
also claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000\/- per month to the first<\/p>\n
appellant and Rs. 1,500\/- per month to the second appellant , who at that<\/p>\n
time, was studying in Std. III.   The respondent is stated to be a medical<\/p>\n
practitioner with a Post Graduate degree in Acu-puncture from abroad. As<\/p>\n
per the plaint averments, his monthly income is Rs. 35,000\/- and he is<\/p>\n
deliberately avoiding to maintain them.\n<\/p>\n
      2. In the counter statement filed by the respondent, he denied the<\/p>\n
averments made in the plaint. It was contended that whatever property the<\/p>\n
first appellant had at the time of marriage were exclusively at her own<\/p>\n
disposal and there was no occasion for him to deal with or misappropriate<\/p>\n
M.F.A. 956\/2002                         :2:\n<\/p>\n
those properties. He denied the entrustment and custody of the gold<\/p>\n
ornaments belonging to the first appellant.\n<\/p>\n
       3.   The court below considered the issue as to (i) whether the<\/p>\n
petitioners are entitled to past maintenance from the respondent and if so,<\/p>\n
what is the quantum, (ii) whether the first petitioner is entitled to return of<\/p>\n
gold ornaments of 100 sovereigns or its corresponding and (iii) whether the<\/p>\n
first petitioner is entitled for a decree for an amount of Rs. 1,70,000\/- from<\/p>\n
the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
       4. The evidence in the case consists of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to<\/p>\n
3. The respondent did not adduce any evidence. The first appellant herself<\/p>\n
has given evidence as PW.1. She supported the plaint averments. However,<\/p>\n
she did not specifically claimed any past maintenance while examined as a<\/p>\n
witness. For this reason, the court below held that even the vague claim<\/p>\n
made by her for maintenance in the petition were given up at the time of<\/p>\n
trial. This is far from satisfactory.      Since the respondent did not contest<\/p>\n
the matter and the petitioner claimed maintenance for herself and her<\/p>\n
minor daughter and also gave evidence regarding the income of the<\/p>\n
respondent, the court below ought to have considered whether the first<\/p>\n
appellant is unable to maintain herself and if not, what is the maintenance<\/p>\n
that can be awarded to her. At any rate, the liability of the respondent to<\/p>\n
M.F.A. 956\/2002                        :3:\n<\/p>\n
maintain the second appellant, who is his daughter born in the wedlock,<\/p>\n
till she is given in marriage, is well recognized by law. The court below<\/p>\n
did not even consider that aspect.\n<\/p>\n
       5. Coming to the question of return of gold ornaments and cash, it is<\/p>\n
true that the evidence is not fully satisfactory. PW.2 is a jeweler who<\/p>\n
deposed that the first appellant’s father placed an order for 61 sovereigns.<\/p>\n
He is conducting business in gold ornaments in Guruvayur.           PW.3 is a<\/p>\n
close relative and deposed that the first appellant\/first petitioner was given<\/p>\n
100 sovereigns at the time of marriage.          But no other evidence is<\/p>\n
forthcoming.    Though the first appellant gave the description of various<\/p>\n
items of gold ornaments which she was wearing at the time of marriage in<\/p>\n
the petition, she was not aware what is the exact weight of each of such<\/p>\n
items. Therefore, in the absence of any material evidence, even accepting<\/p>\n
the evidence of PW.2, it could only help the first appellant to prove the<\/p>\n
purchase of 61 sovereigns. Therefore, even if PWs 2 and 3 are not cross<\/p>\n
examined by the other side, it would have helped the petitioner only to the<\/p>\n
extent of proving that 61 sovereigns had been ordered by her father.<\/p>\n
       6. Now coming to the question of entrustment, except the ipsi dixit of<\/p>\n
the first appellant\/first petitioner, there is no other evidence. The court<\/p>\n
below, in paragraph 13 of its        judgment has elaborately discussed her<\/p>\n
M.F.A. 956\/2002                      :4:\n<\/p>\n
deposition and found that she       has no consistent case regarding the<\/p>\n
entrustment of the ornament with the respondent or regarding the weight of<\/p>\n
the ornaments allegedly left with him.    The discrepancies in her versions<\/p>\n
are highlighted in the judgment for not believing her version as fully true.<\/p>\n
We do not find any reason to hold that the finding of the court below is in<\/p>\n
any way perverse or illegal. No satisfactory evidence is adduced to inspire<\/p>\n
confidence in the mind of the court regarding the case of entrustment of<\/p>\n
gold ornaments.       Regarding the entrustment of cash       also, there is<\/p>\n
absolutely no evidence. As rightly pointed out by the court below, neither<\/p>\n
the mother nor any other close relatives who would have given better<\/p>\n
evidence regarding such things are examined in the case.<\/p>\n
      7. However, we find that the second appellant\/second petitioner,<\/p>\n
who is the minor daughter of the first         appellant born through the<\/p>\n
respondent, is entitled to be maintained by her father. She was studying in<\/p>\n
Std. III at the time of rendering the judgment by the court below. More<\/p>\n
than six years have elapsed thereafter.     In the absence of any evidence<\/p>\n
contra, we decree the plaint claim for an amount of Rs. 1,500\/- (One<\/p>\n
thousand and five hundred only) per month from the date of the petition till<\/p>\n
she attains majority.  She shall also be given in marriage at the expense of<\/p>\n
the respondent. Considering the status of the parties, the respondent shall<\/p>\n
M.F.A. 956\/2002                     :5:\n<\/p>\n
pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000\/- (Rupees two lakhs) towards the marriage<\/p>\n
expenses of the second appellant\/second petitioner, besides         paying<\/p>\n
maintenance as ordered above.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal is allowed to the limited extent as indicated above.<\/p>\n
                                                    P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
                                             C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
KNC\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.F.A. 956\/2002    :6:\n\n\n\n\n                                  P.R. RAMAN &\n                            C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.\n                          = = = = = = = = = == = =\n\n\n\n\n                              M.F.A. 956 OF 2002\n                              = = = = = = = = = =\n\n\n\n                                 J U D G M E N T\n\n\n\n                                         4.2.2009.\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Smt.Prameela vs Dr.Raj Kumar on 4 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM MFA.No. 956 of 2002(E) 1. SMT.PRAMEELA,D\/O.SREEMATHI, … Petitioner 2. KUMARI.SREELAKSHMI (MINOR), Vs 1. DR.RAJ KUMAR,S\/O.LATE DR.SREENIVASAN, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/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-54410","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt.Prameela vs Dr.Raj Kumar on 4 February, 2009 - 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\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt.Prameela vs Dr.Raj Kumar on 4 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-16T01:14:08+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt.Prameela vs Dr.Raj Kumar on 4 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-16T01:14:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":944,\"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\\\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Smt.Prameela vs Dr.Raj Kumar on 4 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-16T01:14:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt.Prameela vs Dr.Raj Kumar on 4 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt.Prameela vs Dr.Raj Kumar on 4 February, 2009 - 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\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt.Prameela vs Dr.Raj Kumar on 4 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-16T01:14:08+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt.Prameela vs Dr.Raj Kumar on 4 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-16T01:14:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009"},"wordCount":944,"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\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009","name":"Smt.Prameela vs Dr.Raj Kumar on 4 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-16T01:14:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-prameela-vs-dr-raj-kumar-on-4-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt.Prameela vs Dr.Raj Kumar on 4 February, 2009"}]},{"@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\/54410","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=54410"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54410\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54410"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54410"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54410"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}