{"id":70414,"date":"2009-01-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009"},"modified":"2017-05-18T15:22:47","modified_gmt":"2017-05-18T09:52:47","slug":"mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mary vs Aravindakshan on 5 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mary vs Aravindakshan on 5 January, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.MC.No. 900 of 2007()\n\n\n1. MARY,W\/O JOSE,CHIRAYATH HOUSE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. JOSE,S\/O.OUSEPH,-DO-\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. ARAVINDAKSHAN,S\/O.KRISHNAN,KUNJARA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.A.SHAJI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :05\/01\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                            R. BASANT, J.\n                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                   Crl.M.C.No. 900 of 2007\n                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n             Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009\n\n                               O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>      The petitioners, spouses, have come before this Court with<\/p>\n<p>a prayer that the criminal prosecution initiated against them by<\/p>\n<p>the first respondent\/complainant may be quashed invoking the<\/p>\n<p>extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n<p>The first petitioner\/accused is the owner of about 63 cents of<\/p>\n<p>land.   The second petitioner\/accused is her husband.            They<\/p>\n<p>allegedly entered into an agreement with one Shaji on 24.11.1998<\/p>\n<p>for sale of the said item of property. An amount of Rs.10,000\/-<\/p>\n<p>was received by way of advance\/earnest money and the balance<\/p>\n<p>amount of Rs.65,000\/- was agreed to be paid later as per the said<\/p>\n<p>written agreement dt.24.11.98.            On 26.11.1998 the balance<\/p>\n<p>amount of Rs.65,000\/- is also alleged to have been paid by the<\/p>\n<p>said Shaji and received by the petitioners. Sale Deed was not<\/p>\n<p>executed.    The period stipulated for the performance of the<\/p>\n<p>agreement had elapsed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Crl.M.C.No. 900 of 2007<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      2. At that juncture, the petitioners allegedly entered into another<\/p>\n<p>agreement with the defacto complainant, the first respondent herein,<\/p>\n<p>agreeing to sell the very same property to him for a consideration of<\/p>\n<p>Rs.2,52,000\/- That agreement was entered into on 4.8.1999. In that<\/p>\n<p>agreement the earlier agreement with Shaji was specifically recited. It<\/p>\n<p>was recited that towards the sale consideration of Rs.75,000\/- an<\/p>\n<p>amount of Rs.10,000\/- had been received. The sale consideration was<\/p>\n<p>received in advance as per agreement dt. 4.8.1999 for the purported<\/p>\n<p>purpose of discharging the liability in respect of the earlier transaction.<\/p>\n<p>Possession of the property was also handed over to the first respondent<\/p>\n<p>as per agreement dt.4.8.1999.        Though the defacto complainant<\/p>\n<p>continued to remain in possession on the strength of the said<\/p>\n<p>agreement, the sale deed was not executed and in these circumstances<\/p>\n<p>the defacto complainant filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate<\/p>\n<p>alleging commission of the offence of cheating by the petitioners. That<\/p>\n<p>complaint was referred to the police and the police after due<\/p>\n<p>investigation submitted a refer report, which was accepted.<\/p>\n<p>      3. The first respondent filed a protest complaint making identical<\/p>\n<p>allegations. The learned Magistrate considered the said complaint in<\/p>\n<p>Crl.M.C.No. 900 of 2007<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>accordance with law and by Annex.A3 order dt.6.10.2001 dismissed<\/p>\n<p>the said complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. holding that no sufficient<\/p>\n<p>ground has been revealed to justify issue of processes under Section<\/p>\n<p>204 Cr.P.C. The dismissal of that complaint was challenged before the<\/p>\n<p>Sessions Court in revision and the Sessions court dismissed the said<\/p>\n<p>complaint on the ground that there has been delay.      Dismissal of the<\/p>\n<p>private complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. thus became final.<\/p>\n<p>      4. Thereafter the first respondent filed another private complaint<\/p>\n<p>raising identical allegations again against the petitioners.    On that<\/p>\n<p>complaint cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate and it<\/p>\n<p>is aggrieved by such course adopted by the learned Magistrate that the<\/p>\n<p>petitioners have come before this Court now.\n<\/p>\n<p>      5.  The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the<\/p>\n<p>learned Magistrate having already accepted the refer report submitted<\/p>\n<p>by the police after due investigation and the same Magistrate having<\/p>\n<p>later dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., which<\/p>\n<p>dismissal has become final with the rejection of the revision petition as<\/p>\n<p>barred by limitation by the revisional court, the learned Magistrate was<\/p>\n<p>totally unjustified in taking cognizance and issuing process under<\/p>\n<p>Crl.M.C.No. 900 of 2007<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Section 204 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits<\/p>\n<p>that no circumstances whatsoever exist to justify the entertainment of<\/p>\n<p>a subsequent complaint after successive dismissal of the earlier<\/p>\n<p>complaint before the police and the Magistrate. No circumstances<\/p>\n<p>whatsoever exist to justify the cognizance taken afresh on the basis of<\/p>\n<p>the subsequent complaint, contends the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n<p>petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>      6. The learned counsel for the first respondent on the contrary<\/p>\n<p>submits that entertainment of a second complaint by a Magistrate, who<\/p>\n<p>has earlier accepted a refer report submitted by the police or had earlier<\/p>\n<p>dismissed a complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., is not anathema to<\/p>\n<p>law and in a proper case such second complaint can be entertained,<\/p>\n<p>notwithstanding the earlier acceptance of the refer report submitted by<\/p>\n<p>the police and the later dismissal of the complaint under Section 203<\/p>\n<p>Cr.P.C. on merits. Counsel relies on the decisions in <a href=\"\/doc\/1092058\/\">Mahesh Chand<\/p>\n<p>v. Janardhan Reddy<\/a> ((2003) 1 SCC 734) and <a href=\"\/doc\/342073\/\">Poonam Chand Jain<\/p>\n<p>v. Fazru<\/a> (2005 Crl.L.J. 100).\n<\/p>\n<p>      7. I have no quarrel with the proposition that a second complaint<\/p>\n<p>can be entertained by the learned Magistrate if sufficient circumstances<\/p>\n<p>Crl.M.C.No. 900 of 2007<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>do exist to justify the entertainment of such a later complaint. In the<\/p>\n<p>instant case the earlier complaint has been dismissed on merits. An<\/p>\n<p>attempt was made unsuccessfully to challenge the dismissal of the<\/p>\n<p>complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. In these circumstances it does<\/p>\n<p>not lie in the mouth of the complainant\/respondent that there has been<\/p>\n<p>no proper consideration of the complaint. The order passed by the<\/p>\n<p>learned Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C., a copy of which is<\/p>\n<p>produced as Annex.A3, clearly shows that the relevant circumstances<\/p>\n<p>have been adverted to by the learned Magistrate.<\/p>\n<p>       8.  Undaunted, the learned     counsel for the first respondent<\/p>\n<p>submits that the complainant had come to know of subsequent facts,<\/p>\n<p>which in any event justifies the filing of a subsequent complaint and<\/p>\n<p>entertainment of such complaint by the learned Magistrate.<\/p>\n<p>       9. What is the subsequent circumstance? The learned counsel<\/p>\n<p>submits that in the agreement with Shaji Rs.10,000\/- towards sale<\/p>\n<p>consideration of Rs.75,000\/- was paid as earnest money deposit<\/p>\n<p>initially. Within two days the balance amount of Rs.65,000\/- was paid<\/p>\n<p>and the entire sale consideration was paid. This fact &#8211; of subsequent<\/p>\n<p>payment of Rs.65,000\/- &#8211; was suppressed and the complainant came to<\/p>\n<p>Crl.M.C.No. 900 of 2007<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>know of this fact only later when the civil court passed Annex.A2<\/p>\n<p>decree in O.S.1505 of 2000. The judgment in that case, though not<\/p>\n<p>produced along with the Crl.M.C., a copy of the same has been placed<\/p>\n<p>before me. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that in as<\/p>\n<p>much as the complainant came to know of receipt of the entire sale<\/p>\n<p>consideration by the petitioners within two days of the agreement only<\/p>\n<p>later after the judgment in the civil suit was pronounced, the<\/p>\n<p>complainant is justified in filing a renewed complaint after the decree<\/p>\n<p>was passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      10. The learned counsel for the petitioners stoutly opposes this<\/p>\n<p>contention and points out that in Annex.A5 complaint i.e. the initial<\/p>\n<p>complaint which was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C., very<\/p>\n<p>specific allegation was raised that the complainant had come to know<\/p>\n<p>that the entire sale consideration had been paid. I have been taken<\/p>\n<p>through the relevant averments in Annex.A5. In paragraph 4 of the<\/p>\n<p>said complaint it has been unambiguously averred that the entire sale<\/p>\n<p>consideration had been paid and received by the petitioners when they<\/p>\n<p>entered into the agreement with the defacto complainant.<\/p>\n<p>Crl.M.C.No. 900 of 2007<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      11. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the respondent\/<\/p>\n<p>defacto complainant is not entitled to any benefit or advantage<\/p>\n<p>emanating from the decisions referred above. No new circumstance<\/p>\n<p>has come to the notice of the complainant subsequent to the dismissal<\/p>\n<p>of the private complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The mere fact that<\/p>\n<p>that circumstance &#8211; payment of Rs.65,000\/-      is confirmed     by the<\/p>\n<p>judgment and decree of the civil court cannot justify the entertainment<\/p>\n<p>of a renewed complaint by the court below,         which had already<\/p>\n<p>dismissed such complaint earlier under Section 203 Cr.P.C. I am in<\/p>\n<p>these circumstances satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to be<\/p>\n<p>reliefs prayed for.\n<\/p>\n<p>      12. This Crl.M.C. is allowed. The cognizance taken against the<\/p>\n<p>petitioners by the learned Magistrate in C.C.539 of 2004 is hereby<\/p>\n<p>quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                           (R. BASANT)<br \/>\n                                                 Judge<br \/>\ntm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Mary vs Aravindakshan on 5 January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 900 of 2007() 1. MARY,W\/O JOSE,CHIRAYATH HOUSE, &#8230; Petitioner 2. JOSE,S\/O.OUSEPH,-DO- Vs 1. ARAVINDAKSHAN,S\/O.KRISHNAN,KUNJARA &#8230; Respondent 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY For Petitioner :SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA For Respondent :SRI.T.A.SHAJI The Hon&#8217;ble MR. Justice R.BASANT [&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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-70414","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mary vs Aravindakshan on 5 January, 2009 - 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\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mary vs Aravindakshan on 5 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-18T09:52:47+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mary vs Aravindakshan on 5 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-18T09:52:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1303,\"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\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Mary vs Aravindakshan on 5 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-18T09:52:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mary vs Aravindakshan on 5 January, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mary vs Aravindakshan on 5 January, 2009 - 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\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mary vs Aravindakshan on 5 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-18T09:52:47+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mary vs Aravindakshan on 5 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-18T09:52:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009"},"wordCount":1303,"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\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009","name":"Mary vs Aravindakshan on 5 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-18T09:52:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-aravindakshan-on-5-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mary vs Aravindakshan on 5 January, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70414","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=70414"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70414\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70414"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70414"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70414"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}