{"id":65793,"date":"2010-02-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010"},"modified":"2018-10-16T10:18:49","modified_gmt":"2018-10-16T04:48:49","slug":"t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"T.Pragadeeswari vs T.Valarmathi on 2 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
T.Pragadeeswari vs T.Valarmathi on 2 February, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 02\/02\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MRs.JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN\n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal(MD) No.450 of 2003\nand\nC.M.P.No.3872 of 2003\n\n1.T.Pragadeeswari\n\n2.The Regional Manager,\n  United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,\n  Thanjavur.                                       ..  Appellants\n\nvs\n\n1.T.Valarmathi\n2.T.Muruganantham\n3.T.Muruga Prakash\n4.T.Ponsigh\n5.S.Velliammal\n6.Sekar\n7.The Regional Manager,\n  New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,\n  85\/P, Market Road,\n  Thanjavur.\n[4th respondent minor declared as\nmajor and mother discharged from\nGuardianship as per the order of\nthis Court dated 26.6.2007 made in\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007]                              ..   Respondents\n\t\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles\nAct, 1988 Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Judgment and Decree dated\n7.11.2001 made in MACT OP No.894 of 1996 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal\n(Principal District Judge), Thanjavur.\n\n!For appellants\t         ... Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai\n^For respondents 1 to 5  ... Mr.G.Sridharan\n                             for M\/s.R.Palaniappan\nFor 6th respondent       ... No appearance\nFor 7th respondent       ... Mr.K.Neelamegam\n                             for M\/s.M.Ramdhas\t\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J)<\/p>\n
\tThe insurance company and the owner of the bus involved in the accident
\nhave filed this Appeal against the award of Rs.17,86,000\/- as compensation for
\nthe death of one Thirugnanam.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The said Thirugnanam was travelling as a pillion rider in the motor
\ncycle belonging to the sixth respondent herein.  At that time, a bus belonging
\nto the first appellant and insured by the second appellant was driven rashly and
\nnegligently and it ran over the deceased Thirugnanam.  He sustained grievous
\ninjuries.  He was admitted in the Thanjavur Hospital and he was given treatment
\nfor five days but he succumbed to the injuries.  The deceased was employed as
\nthe Deputy Manager in the State Bank of India, Orathanadu Branch and he was
\ndrawing a salary of Rs.14,800.41 per month.  He was 49 years old at the time of
\nthe accident.  He was a Scale-III Officer.  According to the claimants, if he
\nwas alive, he would have become Scale-IV Officer and would have become Scale-V
\nOfficer  at the time of superannuation and his basic pay and allowance would be
\nmore than Rs.30,000\/- per month.  Therefore, according to them, they are
\nentitled to a sum of Rs.40,00,000\/- as compensation.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The Tribunal found that the driver of the vehicle involved was guilty
\nof rash and negligent driving and quantified the compensation as Rs.17,86,000\/-.
\nThe  Tribunal took note of the salary certificate, which is Ex.P.9, which was
\nspoken to by PW.6, a bank employee, and without any other discussion, awarded a
\nsum of Rs.17,86,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the
\ndeceased was 49 years old at the time of accident and 8 years of service alone
\nwas left before reaching the age of superannuation.  He submitted that the
\nSupreme Court had held that for future increase, no amount could be taken into
\naccount if the deceased is above 50 years and since this is a case where the
\ndeceased was marginally short of 50 years of age, no increase could be given for
\nfuture prospects.  He also submitted that there is evidence to show that the son
\nof the deceased was given compassionate employment and was earning a sum of
\nRs.4,000\/- per month.  Therefore, he submitted that the compensation must be
\nreduced.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand submitted that even
\nafter the age of superannuation, the deceased would have been gainfully engaged
\nin some post-retirement operation, thereby, earning not less than Rs.10,000\/-
\nper month.  He also submitted that there is evidence to show that, had the
\ndeceased lived till the age of superannuation, he would earn Rs.30,000\/- per
\nmonth and hence, some increase should be given with regard to the monthly income
\ntaking note of the future prospects.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Learned counsel for the claimants also submitted that in Smt.Sarla
\nVerma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and<\/a> another [2009(2) TN MAC
\n1(SC)], it has been held that, 30% increase should be given towards future
\nprospects, for persons between the age group of 40 and 50 years and since in
\nthis case, the deceased was 49 years old, 30% increase should be given.\t7.
\nReliance was also placed on the judgment in  K.Perumal & another v. Tmt.
\nKamalabai [2004 (2) TN MAC (DB) 535, where this Court had taken into account the
\ncontribution that might have been made by the deceased to the family even after
\nthe retirement.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. we have considered the facts and materials before us and also the
\njudgment cited before us.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. In Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Smt.Kanta Aggarwal and others<\/a> [2008
\n(2) TN MAC 170 (SC)], the Supreme Court had observed that the High Court had
\nlost sight of the fact that the benefits which the claimant receives on account
\nof the death or injury have to be duly considered while fixing the compensation.
\nIn the same order, the Supreme Court extracted the following paragraph from
\nHelen C. Rebello V. Maharashtra S.R.T.C. [1999 (1) SCC 90]:-
\n\t“32. …Thus under the present Act, whatever pecuniary advantage is
\nreceived by the claimant, from whatever source, would only mean which comes to
\nthe claimant on account of the accidental death and not other forms of death…\n<\/p>\n
\t33. Thus, it would not include that which the claimant receives on account
\nof other forms of deaths, which he would have received even apart from
\naccidental death.  Thus, such pecuniary advantage would have no correlation to
\nthe accidental death for which Compensation is computed.  Any amount received or
\nreceivable not only on account of the accidental death but that which would have
\ncome to the claimant even otherwise, would not be construed to be the “pecuniary
\nadvantage”, liable for deduction…”\n<\/p>\n
\t10. In the National Insurance Co.Ltd., Madurai v. Sujaya C.Moorthy &
\nOthers<\/a> [2004 (1) TN MAC (DB) 276, a Divison Bench of this Court had held in
\nparagraph 39 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“39. … Ex.A.4 is the salary certificate issued by the senior Manager of
\nCanara Bank which would show that the deceased was drawing a salary of
\nRs.7,248\/- per month including allowances, besides he is entitled to enjoy the
\nperquisites of furnished quarters for the value of Rs.1,870\/- per month, free
\ncar allowance of Rs.630\/- per month and medical care at Rs.1,000\/- per annum.
\nFor free quarters, free car and medical care which the deceased is entitled to
\nif he continued in service, as already pointed out, he would have earned
\nRs.6,09,000\/-.  Therefore, in all he would have earned Rs.6,09,000\/- during the
\nsaid period of seven years…”\n<\/p>\n
\t11. In National Insurance Company Ltd., V. Indira Srivastava & others<\/a>
\n[2008 (1) TN MAC 166 (SC) 166], the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 17 as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“17. The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the
\ndeceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of
\nhis monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of
\ncontribution to the family as contra-distinguished to the ones which were for
\nhis benefit.  We may, however, hasten to add that from the said amount of
\nincome, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted.”\n<\/p>\n
\t12. In Smt.Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corporation &<\/a> another
\n[2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC)], the Supreme Court has held as follows:-
\n\t“8. … Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and
\nequitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss
\nsuffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the
\nwell settled principles relating to award of compensation.  It is not intended
\nto be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.  Assessment of compensation
\nthough involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be
\nobjective.  Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency
\nand thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision
\nmaking process and decisions….\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for
\nassessing compensation in the case  of death: (a) age of the deceased; (b)
\nincome of the deceased; and (c)the number of dependents.  The issues to be
\ndetermined by the Tribunal to arrive at the Loss of Dependency are: (i)
\nadditions\/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction
\nto be made towards the Personal Living Expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the
\nmultiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased.  If these
\ndeterminants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the
\ndecisions…  To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine
\ncompensation in cases of death, by the following well settled steps.\n<\/p>\n
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand):\n<\/p>\n
\tThe income of the deceased per annum should be determined.  Out of the
\nsaid income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the
\ndeceased would have spent on himself by way of Personal and Living Expenses.
\nThe balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family,
\nconstitutes the multiplicand.\n<\/p>\n
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
\n\tHaving regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the
\nappropriate multiplier should be selected.  This does not mean ascertaining the
\nnumber of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident.  Having
\nregard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of
\nmultipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court.  The
\nmultiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the
\ndeceased.\n<\/p>\n
Step 3 (Actual calculation):\n<\/p>\n
\tThe annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by
\nsuch multiplier gives the ‘Loss of Dependency’ to the family….\n<\/p>\n
\t11. In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in
\nSarla Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the
\nincome was increased by a mere 7%.  In view of imponderables and uncertainties,
\nwe are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual
\nsalary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects
\nwhere the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years.[Where the annual
\nincome is in the taxable range, the words ‘actual salary’ should be read as
\n‘actual salary less tax’].  The additional should be only 30% if the age of the
\ndeceased was 40 to 50 years.  There should be no addition, where the age of
\ndeceased is more than 50 years.  Though the evidence may indicate a different
\npercentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid
\ndifferent yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being
\nadopted.  Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without
\nprovision for annual increments etc.,), the Courts will usually take only the
\nactual income at the time of death.  A departure therefrom should be made only
\nin rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. … Therefore, it became necessary to standardize the deductions to be
\nmade under the head of Personal and Living Expenses of the deceased.  This lead
\nto the practice of deducting towards Personal and Living Expenses of the
\ndeceased, one-third of the income if the deceased was a married, and one-half
\n(50%) of the income if the deceased was a bachelor.  This practice was evolved
\nout of experience, logic and convenience.  In fact one-third deduction, got
\nstatutory recognition under Second Schedule to the Act, in respect of claims
\nunder Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’ for short).\n<\/p>\n
\t14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards Personal and
\nLiving Expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra,
\nthe general practice is to apply standardized deductions.  Having considered
\nseveral subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the
\ndeceased was married, the deduction towards Personal and Living Expenses of the
\ndeceased, should be one-third (1\/3rd) where the number of dependent family
\nmembers is 2 to 3, one fourth (th) where the number of dependant family members
\nis 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1\/5th) where the number of dependent family members
\nexceed six.”\n<\/p>\n
\t13. We have weighed the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on
\nthe side of the insurance company and on the side of the claimants with regard
\nto possible increase that should be applied to the income that was received by
\nthe deceased at the time of accident. In this case, there is evidence to show
\nthat the son is receiving a sum of Rs.4,000\/- per month upon the compassionate
\nemployment. We cannot brush aside the submission made on behalf of the claimants
\nthat the Supreme Court has fixed 30% as increase towards future prospects that
\nshould be applied for the deceased persons who are in between the age group of
\n40 and 50 years.  We also take note of the fact that the deceased in this case
\nwas just marginally short of 50 years but if we balance the income received by
\nthe son after being employed on compassionate ground, we feel that this amount
\nbalances out the other and therefore, we fix the monthly income at Rs.15,000\/-,
\nout of which,  Rs.10,000\/- will be the contribution to the family.  Hence, the
\nannual dependency would be Rs.1,20,000\/-.  Since the deceased was 49 years, we
\napply 10 as the multiplier and the loss would be Rs.12,00,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.  However, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned
\ncounsel for the appellants relying on judgment in K.Perumal’s case supra, for
\nthe possible earnings in future, that the deceased would be earning a sum of
\nRs.10,000\/- per month if he would be alive.  We must remember that the accident
\ntook place in the year 1996.  Therefore, we fix a sum of Rs.5,000\/- per month as
\nthe possible earning after deducting the personal expenses and adopting the
\nmultiplier 2, the amount comes to Rs.1,20,000\/- [5,000 X 12 = 60,000 X 2 =
\n1,20,000].\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, total pecuniary loss      = Rs.13,20,000\n[Rs.12,00,000 + 1,20,000]\nLoss of consortium to wife\t     = Rs.35,000\nLoss of love & affection\n towards 3 children 10,000 X 3       = Rs.30,000\n\nLoss of love & affection\n towards mother                      = Rs.10,000\n\nFuneral expenses\t\t     = Rs.5,000\n                                       ------------\n        Total compensation           = Rs.14,00,000\n                                       ============\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t15. Therefore, the compensation is reduced to Rs.14,00,000\/- from
\nRs.17,86,000\/-, awarded by the Tribunal.  Out of this Rs.14,00,000\/-, the wife
\nof the deceased is entitled to Rs.6,00,000\/-, mother of the deceased is entitled
\nto Rs.50,000\/-, the second respondent herein is entitled to Rs.1,50,000\/- and
\nthe respondents 3 and 4 are entitled to Rs.3,00,000\/- each. Coming to the rate
\nof interest, the interest @ 9% awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and we are
\nnot inclined to interfere with it.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
\nallowed.  Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
asvm<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
\n(Principal District Judge),
\nThanjavur.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court T.Pragadeeswari vs T.Valarmathi on 2 February, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02\/02\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRs.JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Civil Miscellaneous Appeal(MD) No.450 of 2003 and C.M.P.No.3872 of 2003 1.T.Pragadeeswari 2.The Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Thanjavur. .. Appellants vs 1.T.Valarmathi […]<\/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-65793","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.Pragadeeswari vs T.Valarmathi on 2 February, 2010 - 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\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.Pragadeeswari vs T.Valarmathi on 2 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-16T04:48:49+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\\\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.Pragadeeswari vs T.Valarmathi on 2 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-16T04:48:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2238,\"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\\\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010\",\"name\":\"T.Pragadeeswari vs T.Valarmathi on 2 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-16T04:48:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.Pragadeeswari vs T.Valarmathi on 2 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"T.Pragadeeswari vs T.Valarmathi on 2 February, 2010 - 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\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.Pragadeeswari vs T.Valarmathi on 2 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-16T04:48:49+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\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.Pragadeeswari vs T.Valarmathi on 2 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-16T04:48:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010"},"wordCount":2238,"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\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010","name":"T.Pragadeeswari vs T.Valarmathi on 2 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-16T04:48:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-pragadeeswari-vs-t-valarmathi-on-2-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.Pragadeeswari vs T.Valarmathi on 2 February, 2010"}]},{"@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\/65793","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=65793"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65793\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65793"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65793"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65793"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}