{"id":72590,"date":"2010-06-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010"},"modified":"2014-02-25T17:40:59","modified_gmt":"2014-02-25T12:10:59","slug":"dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dawood vs Zubaida B.A. on 10 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Dawood vs Zubaida B.A. on 10 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMat.Appeal.No. 546 of 2009()\n\n\n1. DAWOOD, AGED 25 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. ZUBAIDA B.A., D\/O. D.M. ABDULLA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.V.SOHAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\nThe Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI\n\n Dated :10\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n               R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.\n                       **********************\n                 Mat.Appeal No.546 of 2009\n                       *********************\n               Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
BASANT, J.\n<\/p>\n
     Can a recalcitrant litigant be permitted to take advantage<\/p>\n
of the alleged inadequacy in the service of notice when it is clear<\/p>\n
as day light that he had full knowledge of the proceedings and<\/p>\n
opportunity to participate in the same?\n<\/p>\n
This question arises for consideration in this appeal.<\/p>\n
     2.    This appeal is preferred by the appellant through his<\/p>\n
power of attorney holder, his father, against dismissal of<\/p>\n
applications to condone the delay of 330 days and to set aside an<\/p>\n
exparte order of divorce passed against him under Section 2 of<\/p>\n
the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939.<\/p>\n
     3.    To the skeletal facts first. The marriage took place on<\/p>\n
18.07.2004. The wife claimed divorce under Section 2 of the<\/p>\n
Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act in a petition filed in 2007 –<\/p>\n
as O.P.No.225 of 2007. The appellant\/husband was employed<\/p>\n
abroad. Notice could not be personally served on him. Attempt<\/p>\n
was made to effect service by affixture at the place of permanent<\/p>\n
Mat.Appeal No.546 of 2009         2<\/span><\/p>\n
residence of the appellant in India. The notice was affixed. To<\/p>\n
that affixture, the father of the appellant, his present power of<\/p>\n
attorney holder, was a witness. The appellant did not appear<\/p>\n
even thereafter.        It was, in these circumstances, that on<\/p>\n
15.01.2008, an exparte decree was passed against the appellant<\/p>\n
dissolving the marriage. Long later, after the lapse of about a<\/p>\n
year, the appellant filed an application to set aside the exparte<\/p>\n
order.    That application was preferred by him through his<\/p>\n
father\/power of attorney holder. Along with that application, he<\/p>\n
filed another application to condone the delay of 330 days in<\/p>\n
filing such application.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    The applications were opposed.     The father of the<\/p>\n
appellant examined himself as PW1. Ext.A1 photocopy of the<\/p>\n
passport of the appellant was marked. The court below on an<\/p>\n
anxious consideration of all the relevant circumstances came to<\/p>\n
the conclusion that the appellant had full knowledge of the<\/p>\n
proceedings and that he had deliberately not participated in the<\/p>\n
proceedings. The court took the view that the evidence tendered<\/p>\n
by PW1 is insufficient to come to a conclusion that the appellant<\/p>\n
was wrongly set exparte. The long delay of 330 days was not<\/p>\n
sufficiently explained, opined the court. The court had before it<\/p>\n
Mat.Appeal No.546 of 2009         3<\/span><\/p>\n
the undisputed circumstance that the appellant had married<\/p>\n
again during the subsistence of the earlier marriage. The court<\/p>\n
further took the view that the appellant does not deserve a<\/p>\n
further opportunity to contest the proceedings. Accordingly the<\/p>\n
court proceeded to pass the impugned order. It is this common<\/p>\n
order that is assailed in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     5.     The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the<\/p>\n
appellant, at the relevant time, was residing abroad at his place<\/p>\n
of employment and he was not available in India. This fact was<\/p>\n
known to the respondent\/wife. In spite of knowledge of that fact,<\/p>\n
she did not take any steps to get service effected at the place of<\/p>\n
residence of the appellant abroad. Instead, she only took steps<\/p>\n
to get service effected at his place of residence in India. When<\/p>\n
personal service could not be effected, she attempted to get<\/p>\n
service effected by affixture. The fact that service by affixture<\/p>\n
was effected and the fact that PW1, the father of the appellant,<\/p>\n
who later on obtained power of attorney from him, was a witness<\/p>\n
to the affixture is of course not disputed. Still later publication<\/p>\n
was taken out in an edition of the Kerala Kaumudi news paper.<\/p>\n
     6.     According to the learned counsel for the appellant,<\/p>\n
notice ought to have been taken to the place of residence of the<\/p>\n
Mat.Appeal No.546 of 2009         4<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant abroad.       According to him, effecting service at the<\/p>\n
place of permanent residence of the appellant in India is<\/p>\n
incorrect, improper and insufficient.     Service by affixture, to<\/p>\n
which PW1 was a party, cannot, in these circumstances, cure the<\/p>\n
defect\/inadequacy in service. The mere fact that the father of<\/p>\n
the appellant had knowledge of service of notice by affixture at a<\/p>\n
time when he was not the power of attorney holder of the<\/p>\n
appellant cannot, under any circumstances, affect the plea of the<\/p>\n
appellant that there has been no proper service and the court<\/p>\n
was wrong in setting him exparte. The publication in the news<\/p>\n
paper in an edition which has circulation only at his place of<\/p>\n
permanent residence in India is not sufficient and cannot be held<\/p>\n
to be adequate. In support of these contentions, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant heavily relies on the following<\/p>\n
decisions. Great Punjab Agro Industries Ltd. v. Khushian<\/p>\n
[92005) 13 SCC 503], Rabindra Singh v. Financial Commr.<\/p>\n
[(2008) 7 SCC 663], Naresh Chandra Agarwal v. Bank of<\/p>\n
Baroda and others<\/a> [(2001) 3 SCC 163] and Chathu v.<\/p>\n
Gopalan<\/a> [1981 KLT 103].\n<\/p>\n
     7.     The learned counsel for the respondent\/wife on the<\/p>\n
other hand contends that there is absolutely no merit in the<\/p>\n
Mat.Appeal No.546 of 2009        5<\/span><\/p>\n
contentions raised by the appellant. The learned counsel relies<\/p>\n
on the second proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure, which we extract below:\n<\/p>\n
            “13. Setting aside decree ex parte against<\/p>\n
     defendant — In any case in which a decree is passed<\/p>\n
     ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the<\/p>\n
     Court by which the decree was passed for an order<\/p>\n
     to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the<\/p>\n
     summons was not duly served, or that he was<\/p>\n
     prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing<\/p>\n
     when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court<\/p>\n
     shall make an order setting aside the decree as<\/p>\n
     against him upon such terms as to costs, payment<\/p>\n
     into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall<\/p>\n
     appoint a day for proceeding with the suit;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            Provided that where the decree is of such a<\/p>\n
     nature that it cannot be set aside as against such<\/p>\n
     defendant only it may be set aside as against all or<\/p>\n
     any of the other defendants also:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
            [Provided further that no Court shall set aside a<\/p>\n
      decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that<\/p>\n
      there has been an irregularity in the service of<\/p>\n
      summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had<\/p>\n
Mat.Appeal No.546 of 2009          6<\/span><\/p>\n
      notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time<\/p>\n
      to appear and answer the plaintiff’s claim.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (Explanation–Where there has been an appeal<\/p>\n
      against a decree passed ex parte under this rule, and<\/p>\n
      the appeal has been disposed of on any ground other<\/p>\n
      than the ground that the appellant has withdrawn<\/p>\n
      the appeal, no application shall lie under this rule for<\/p>\n
      setting aside that ex parte decree.)”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
The counsel contends that the appellant had full knowledge of<\/p>\n
the pendency of the proceedings.         He had deliberately not<\/p>\n
appeared before court. He can by no stretch of imagination be<\/p>\n
heard to contend that he had no knowledge of the pendency of<\/p>\n
the proceedings. His father was a witness to the affixture. The<\/p>\n
father or the son does not have a case that information about the<\/p>\n
affixture was not known to the father or was not conveyed by the<\/p>\n
father to the appellant. It cannot be lost sight of that it is the<\/p>\n
very same father, who as the appellant’s attorney, has tendered<\/p>\n
evidence before court as PW1. Did not PW1 inform his son, the<\/p>\n
appellant, of the affixture of the court’s notice on his premises<\/p>\n
with him as a witness? If he did not, why did he not inform the<\/p>\n
appellant? If he did inform the appellant, why did the appellant<\/p>\n
Mat.Appeal No.546 of 2009       7<\/span><\/p>\n
remain mute and inactive till 330 days elapsed from the date of<\/p>\n
the decree? No effective answers are forthcoming to all these<\/p>\n
queries.    The inference appears to be irresistible that the<\/p>\n
appellant, who had no intention to contest the proceedings, is<\/p>\n
now belatedly making attempt to undo the successful efforts<\/p>\n
made by the respondent to obtain a decree.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      8.    The learned counsel for the appellant attempts to<\/p>\n
advance a contention that on merits the decree for divorce is not<\/p>\n
justified. The decree can be assailed only on the basis of the<\/p>\n
materials that are presently available.      Attempt to import<\/p>\n
materials from other proceedings which are there cannot<\/p>\n
obviously be permitted by this Court. On the materials available,<\/p>\n
the decree for divorce appears to be absolutely justified.<\/p>\n
      9.    The learned counsel for the respondent submits that<\/p>\n
the emptiness and hollowness of these contentions of the<\/p>\n
appellant against the exparte decree for divorce can be<\/p>\n
deciphered from the fact that he had admittedly remarried even<\/p>\n
while the petition was pending. We have been taken through the<\/p>\n
exparte evidence tendered by the wife in O.P.No.225 of 2007. It<\/p>\n
has been asserted by her that her husband is guilty of cruelty,<\/p>\n
that he has married again and that he is not desirous of<\/p>\n
Mat.Appeal No.546 of 2009        8<\/span><\/p>\n
continuing the marriage.       In the light of the decision in<\/p>\n
Abdurahiman v. Khairunneesa [2010 (1) KLT 891], the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondent contends that attempt of the<\/p>\n
appellant to resist the claim for divorce is without any merit or<\/p>\n
substance.\n<\/p>\n
      10. We have considered all these contentions.      We are<\/p>\n
satisfied that the second proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code<\/p>\n
of Civil Procedure must guide and control the controversy raised.<\/p>\n
It is crystal clear, nay there is not a semblance of doubt in the<\/p>\n
mind of the Court that affixture was attempted and effected at<\/p>\n
the permanent residence of the appellant in India in the<\/p>\n
presence of his father who, later on, has become his power of<\/p>\n
attorney holder. In the total absence of even a contention that<\/p>\n
PW1, the father of the appellant, did not convey the fact of<\/p>\n
affixture of notice to the appellant, the valiant attempt made<\/p>\n
belatedly to get the exparte order set aside, must be found to be<\/p>\n
without any merit.\n<\/p>\n
      11. The rationale of the second proviso to Order 9 Rule 13<\/p>\n
must be alertly imbibed. The rule of natural justice universally<\/p>\n
accepted oblige the Courts in all refined societies to insist that<\/p>\n
no one should be visited with an adverse consequence unless he<\/p>\n
Mat.Appeal No.546 of 2009        9<\/span><\/p>\n
has been given an effective and reasonable opportunity to be<\/p>\n
heard – to show cause against such an adverse order.         Such<\/p>\n
salutary rule should not deliver any undeserved advantage to any<\/p>\n
recalcitrant litigant who does not make use of the opportunity<\/p>\n
which was made available to him. It would be inequitable to<\/p>\n
permit such party to exploit and take advantage of the salutary<\/p>\n
rule, when he really had knowledge of the proceedings and<\/p>\n
sufficient time and opportunity to appear and answer the claim.<\/p>\n
The inequitable nature of the appellant’s claim is evident from<\/p>\n
the fact that PW1, the father of the appellant, the sole witness<\/p>\n
examined on his side conveniently does not assert that he who<\/p>\n
was a witness to the process of affixture did not convey the<\/p>\n
information to the appellant. Bona fides is not a virtue that we<\/p>\n
can discover or invent in the hands of the appellant. It will not<\/p>\n
be inapposite in this context to note the conduct of the appellant<\/p>\n
of marrying again while the matrimony with the respondent was<\/p>\n
subsisting and the entitlement of the wife for an order of divorce<\/p>\n
on that sole ground in the light of Abdurahiman v.<\/p>\n
Khairunneesa (supra), notwithstanding the fact that a decree<\/p>\n
for divorce      has not now been granted on the ground of<\/p>\n
matrimonial cruelty.\n<\/p>\n
Mat.Appeal No.546 of 2009     10<\/span><\/p>\n
     12. We do not find any merit in the challenge raised. The<\/p>\n
challenge raised in this appeal must, in theses circumstances,<\/p>\n
fail.\n<\/p>\n
     13. This Mat.Appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                       (R.BASANT, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
                                    (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
\nrtr\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Dawood vs Zubaida B.A. on 10 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Mat.Appeal.No. 546 of 2009() 1. DAWOOD, AGED 25 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. ZUBAIDA B.A., D\/O. D.M. ABDULLA, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE For Respondent :SRI.K.V.SOHAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice R.BASANT The Hon’ble MRS. 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-72590","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDawood vs Zubaida B.A. on 10 June, 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\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dawood vs Zubaida B.A. on 10 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-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=\"2010-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-25T12:10:59+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dawood vs Zubaida B.A. on 10 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-25T12:10:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1935,\"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\\\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Dawood vs Zubaida B.A. on 10 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-25T12:10:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dawood vs Zubaida B.A. on 10 June, 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":"Dawood vs Zubaida B.A. on 10 June, 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\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dawood vs Zubaida B.A. on 10 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-25T12:10:59+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dawood vs Zubaida B.A. on 10 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-25T12:10:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010"},"wordCount":1935,"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\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010","name":"Dawood vs Zubaida B.A. on 10 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-25T12:10:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dawood-vs-zubaida-b-a-on-10-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dawood vs Zubaida B.A. on 10 June, 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\/72590","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=72590"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72590\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72590"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72590"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72590"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}