{"id":59507,"date":"2009-04-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009"},"modified":"2017-01-25T12:18:04","modified_gmt":"2017-01-25T06:48:04","slug":"kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Kailashi Bai vs Aarti Arya & Anr on 27 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kailashi Bai vs Aarti Arya & Anr on 27 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Asok Kumar Ganguly<\/div>\n
                                                                              REPORTABLE\n\n           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 861 OF 2009\n                   (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 3277\/2008)\n\n            KAILASHI BAI                         .. APPELLANT\n\n                     vs.\n\n            AARTI ARYA & ANR.                    .. RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          JUD\n                                                                        GMENT\n\n\n\n\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.\n<\/pre>\n
         Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
         Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single
\nJudge of Madhya Pradesh High Court allowing the petition filed in terms of
\nSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `the Code’).\n<\/p>\n
         Background facts, in nutshell, are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
         The present respondent No.1 was married to Mukesh Arya
\n(hereinafter referred to as `deceased’) in the year 2003. According to the
\nprosecution, the deceased was working as Civil Judge and was posted at the
\nrelevant time at Itarsi.   Respondent No.1’s in laws did not approve of the
\nmarriage as the respondent No.1 belonged to an upper caste while the
\ndeceased belonged to the Scheduled Caste. A child was born to them. The
\ndeceased consumed some poisonous substance and lost his life on
\n18\/3\/2007.\n<\/p>\n
                                      -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
         It was the case of the prosecution that during enquiry it surfaced
\nthat the respondent No.1 accused used to harass the deceased and subject to
\nmental cruelty as she belonged to higher caste and she did not like
\nassociation of deceased with his parents and relatives. This was stated to be
\nthe ground of suicide and the accused abetted the suicide. Charge sheet was
\nfiled in Court of Magistrate. An application under Section 482 of the Code was
\nfiled questioning the order passed by learned Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
         The High Court took note of the fact that the present appellant’s
\nstatement on a fair reading did not disclose any offence. The High Court
\nnoted even at the time of marriage, the parties knew caste of the deceased
\nand the accused     and therefore the question of that being a factor for
\nharassing the deceased. Leading to his suicide cannot be believed. It was<\/p>\n
also found that there was no material to show that the accused wanted the
\ndeceased to stay separately from his parents. Accordingly, the proceedings
\nwere quashed.\n<\/p>\n
         It was held that ingredients of Section 306 were not established.
\nLearned counsel for the appellant submitted that the parameters of exercise
\nof power under Sec.482 of the Code was not kept in mind by the High Court.
\nIn any event, it was not a matter which was to be dealt with in trial. Learned
\ncounsel for the respondent No.1 supported the judgment.
\n        Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this
\nnature is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new
\npowers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court
\npossessed before the enactment of the Code.It envisages three circumstances
\nunder<\/p>\n
                                       -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
  which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect
\n  to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court,
\n  and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor
\n  desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise
\n  of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure
\n  can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have
\n  inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary
\n  for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law.
\nThat is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely
\nrecognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts,
\nwhether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision,
\nas inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the
\nright and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the
\nprinciple “quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine
\nquo res ipsae esse non potest” (when the law gives a person anything it
\ngives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers
\nunder the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or
\nrevision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be<\/p>\n
exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such
\nexercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself.
\nIt is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for
\nthe administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists
\nfor advancement of justice and
\n                                      -4-<\/span>
\n  if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice,
\n  the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of
\n  the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent
\n  promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to
\n  quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation\/continuance of it amounts to
\n  abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would<\/p>\n
  otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the
\n  complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is
\n  sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess
\n  what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out
\n  even if the allegations are accepted in toto.\n<\/p>\n
         In R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR<\/a> 1960 SC 866) this Court
\nsummarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should
\nbe exercised to quash the proceedings:\n<\/p>\n
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution
\nor continuance e.g. want of sanction;\n<\/p>\n
ii   where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at
\nits face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence
\nalleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal
\nevidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove
\nthe charge.\n<\/p>\n
                                        -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
     In dealing with the last case, it is important to bear in mind the
\ndistinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there
\nis evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a
\ncase where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not
\nsupport the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of
\nthe Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry
\nwhether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a
\nreasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is
\nthe function of the trial Judge. Judicial process should not be an
\ninstrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be<\/p>\n
circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all
\nrelevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing
\nprocess, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private
\ncomplainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the
\nsame time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to
\nshort-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death.\n<\/p>\n
    The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the
\ncategories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it
\nrelating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or
\n  otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this
\n  Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal<\/a> (1992 Supp (1) 335). A note of
\n  caution was, however, added that the power should be exercised sparingly
\n  and that too in rarest of rare cases. The illustrative categories indicated by
\n  this Court are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                                       -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
“102.(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the
\ncomplaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their
\nentirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
\nthe accused.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if
\nany, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
\ninvestigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
\nan order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
\nthe Code.\n<\/p>\n
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and
\nthe evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission
\nof any offence and make out a case against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but
\nconstitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a<\/p>\n
police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section
\n155(2) of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
5   Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
\ninherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
\nreach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
\nthe accused.\n<\/p>\n
                                      -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
6   Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of<\/p>\n
the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is
\ninstituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and\/or where
\nthere is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing
\nefficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.\n<\/p>\n
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and\/or
\nwhere the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
\nwreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to
\nprivate and personal grudge.”\n<\/p>\n
As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482
\nof the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great
\ncaution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in
\nexercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power
\nshould not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court
\nbeing the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima
\nfacie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more
\nso when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court
\nand the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and
\ncannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course,<\/p>\n
no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High
\nCourt
\n                                      -8-<\/span>
\nwill exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any
\nstage. (See: Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary<\/a> (1992 (4) SCC 305), and Raghubir
\nSaran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar (AIR 1964 SC 1). It would not be proper for the
\nHigh Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all
\nprobabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable
\nand on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be
\nquashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude
\nthat the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on<\/p>\n
complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called
\nfor only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is
\nfrivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint
\ndo not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the
\nMagistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the
\ninherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary
\nthat there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find
\nout whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has
\nto be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in
\nthe light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the
\ningredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material
\nto show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event
\nthere would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an
\ninformation is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then
\nthe mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the<\/p>\n
                                      -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which
\ndecides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against
\nthe informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis
\nfor quashing the proceedings. (See: Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar<\/a>
\n(1990 Supp SCC 686), State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharma (AIR<\/a> 1996 SC 309), Rupan
\nDeol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill<\/a> (1995 (6) SCC 194), State of Kerala v. O. C.
\nKuttan (AIR<\/a> 1999 SC 1044), State of U.P. v. O. P. Sharma<\/a> (1996 (7) SCC 705),
\nRashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada<\/a> (1997 (2) SCC 397), Satvinder Kaur v.
\nState (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (AIR<\/a> 1996 SC 2983) and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT
\nof Delhi<\/a> (1999 (3) SCC 259.\n<\/p>\n
     The above position was recently highlighted in State of Karnataka M.
\nDevendrappa and Another (2002 (3) SCC 89).\n<\/p>\n
    Section 306 deals with abetment of suicide and Section 107 deals with
\nabetment of a thing. They read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                                               “306. Abetment of suicide- If
\nany person commits            suicide, whoever abets the commission of such
\nsuicide,                   shall be punished with imprisonment of either
\ndescription for a term which may extend to ten years and          shall also be
\nliable to fine.\n<\/p>\n
     107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a thing, who:-\n<\/p>\n
                                      -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
     First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or
\n    Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or                 persons in
\nany conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if           an act or illegal omission
\ntakes place in pursuance of that          conspiracy, and in order to the doing
\nof that thing; or
\n    Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission the doing of that
\nthing.\n<\/p>\n
  Explanation 1- A person who, by willful                 misrepresentation or by
\nwillful concealment of a material            fact which he is bound to disclose
\nvoluntarily causes or               procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a
\nthing to be           done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.\n<\/p>\n
      Explanation 2:- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission
\nof an act, does anything in order to              facilitate the commission of that
\nact, and thereby             facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the
\ndoing of that act.”\n<\/p>\n
         There is no doubt that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of
\nthe Code has to be done only in exceptional cases and where there is prima<\/p>\n
facie material trial was to be held. But on the peculiar facts of the case
\nhighlighted above, we are of the view that the High Court was right in
\nexercising its jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Code.                 Therefore, no
\ninterference is called for in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                      ……………. .J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)<\/p>\n
                                             ……………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                           (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
\nNew Delhi,
\nApril 27, 2009.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kailashi Bai vs Aarti Arya & Anr on 27 April, 2009 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Asok Kumar Ganguly REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 861 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 3277\/2008) KAILASHI BAI .. APPELLANT vs. AARTI ARYA & ANR. […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-59507","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKailashi Bai vs Aarti Arya & Anr on 27 April, 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\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kailashi Bai vs Aarti Arya & Anr on 27 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-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=\"2009-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-25T06:48:04+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\\\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kailashi Bai vs Aarti Arya & Anr on 27 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-25T06:48:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2456,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Kailashi Bai vs Aarti Arya & Anr on 27 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-25T06:48:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kailashi Bai vs Aarti Arya & Anr on 27 April, 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":"Kailashi Bai vs Aarti Arya & Anr on 27 April, 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\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kailashi Bai vs Aarti Arya & Anr on 27 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-25T06:48:04+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\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kailashi Bai vs Aarti Arya & Anr on 27 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-25T06:48:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009"},"wordCount":2456,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009","name":"Kailashi Bai vs Aarti Arya & Anr on 27 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-25T06:48:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailashi-bai-vs-aarti-arya-anr-on-27-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kailashi Bai vs Aarti Arya & Anr on 27 April, 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\/59507","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=59507"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59507\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59507"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59507"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59507"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}