{"id":82851,"date":"2010-11-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010"},"modified":"2016-05-01T22:59:23","modified_gmt":"2016-05-01T17:29:23","slug":"divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Divakaran vs Shylaja on 23 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Divakaran vs Shylaja on 23 November, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMat.Appeal.No. 931 of 2010()\n\n\n1. DIVAKARAN,AGED 55 YEARS,S\/O.NARAYANAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SHYLAJA,AGED 47 YEARS,D\/O.SARASAMMA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. ABHIJITH,(MINOR),REP;BY HIS MOTHER-\n\n3. ASWAJITH,(MINOR),REP.BY HIS MOTHER-\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR (KALLESSERIL)\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN\n\n Dated :23\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>                        R.BASANT &amp;<br \/>\n              K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.\n<\/p>\n<p>            &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-\n<\/p>\n<p>                  CMA No.3001\/2010 &amp;<br \/>\n             MAT Appeal No.931 of 2010\n<\/p>\n<p>            &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-<br \/>\n          Dated this the 23rd November, 2010<\/p>\n<p>                   ORDER\/JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>Basant, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      CMA No.3001\/2010 is to condone the delay of 443<\/p>\n<p>days in filing the Matrimonial appeal No.931\/2010. Mat<\/p>\n<p>Appeal No.931\/2010 is directed against an order under<\/p>\n<p>which maintenance was granted to the claimants, i.e. the<\/p>\n<p>wife and two minor children of the appellant.<\/p>\n<p>      Marriage is admitted. Paternity, though disputed,<\/p>\n<p>that controversy was set at rest with Ext.C1 DNA test<\/p>\n<p>report. The presumption under Section 112 of the<\/p>\n<p>Evidence Act also settled the controversy.<\/p>\n<p>      2. Separate residence from 13.6.2000 is admitted.<\/p>\n<p>According to the appellant, such separate residence was<\/p>\n<p>consequent to the detection of alleged adultery between<\/p>\n<p>his wife, the first claimant and another.             The alleged<\/p>\n<p>adulterer was not even named in the counter statement<\/p>\n<p>filed. The bizarre theory is that while the appellant and<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">Mat.Appeal No.931\/2010       2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    his wife were sleeping in the bed room, the alleged<\/p>\n<p>    adulterer came into the bed room and had adulterous<\/p>\n<p>    sexual relationship with his wife. Maintenance has been<\/p>\n<p>    granted at the rate of Rs.750\/- per mensum to the wife and<\/p>\n<p>    Rs.500 and Rs.300\/- for the two minor children from<\/p>\n<p>    13.6.2000 for a period of four years after the filing of the<\/p>\n<p>    petition. For the subsequent periods, maintenance has<\/p>\n<p>    been awarded at the rate of Rs.1,000\/- for the wife and<\/p>\n<p>    Rs.750\/- each for the two minor children.<\/p>\n<p>          3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the<\/p>\n<p>    impugned order. There is a delay of 443 days in filing the<\/p>\n<p>    Matrimonial appeal. It is stated that the delay occurred on<\/p>\n<p>    account of threatening and intimidation which emanated<\/p>\n<p>    from the wife and her brothers. We have carefully<\/p>\n<p>    considered the averments in the affidavit in support of the<\/p>\n<p>    petition for condonation of delay.  We are convinced that<\/p>\n<p>    there is no justifiable reason to condone the long and<\/p>\n<p>    inordinate delay of 443 days in filing this Matrimonial<\/p>\n<p>    appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>          4. In our anxiety to ensure that the rejection of the<\/p>\n<p>    prayer for condonation of delay does not result in<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">Mat.Appeal No.931\/2010        3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    failure\/miscarriage of justice, we requested the learned<\/p>\n<p>    counsel for the appellant to explain the nature of the<\/p>\n<p>    challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the<\/p>\n<p>    impugned order. We have heard the learned counsel in<\/p>\n<p>    detail.\n<\/p>\n<p>          5. The liability to pay maintenance for the wife after<\/p>\n<p>    13.6.2000 is disputed on the ground that she was guilty of<\/p>\n<p>    adultery. As stated earlier, the name of the adulterer is<\/p>\n<p>    not mentioned in the counter statement filed by the<\/p>\n<p>    appellant. That circumstance is indeed crucial and vital.<\/p>\n<p>    It knocks the bottom out of the theory that the wife was<\/p>\n<p>    guilty of adulterous sexual relationship with another. The<\/p>\n<p>    court below did take note of the thoroughly improbable<\/p>\n<p>    version advanced about the alleged adultery. Except the<\/p>\n<p>    self serving ipse dixit of the appellant as RW1, there was<\/p>\n<p>    no other evidence, ocular or circumstantial to even<\/p>\n<p>    remotely indicate the acceptability of such an improbable<\/p>\n<p>    version about the alleged adultery.      We are, in these<\/p>\n<p>    circumstances satisfied that the theory of alleged adultery<\/p>\n<p>    was rightly rejected by the court below.<\/p>\n<p>          7.   Coming    to   the  question   of  quantum     of<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">Mat.Appeal No.931\/2010       4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    maintenance awarded, the amounts awarded &#8211; Rs.750\/-,<\/p>\n<p>    Rs.500\/- and Rs.300\/- for the wife and children from<\/p>\n<p>    13.6.2000 to a period of four years after the filing of the<\/p>\n<p>    petition and an amount of Rs.1,000\/- for the wife and<\/p>\n<p>    Rs.750\/- each for the minor children who were aged 7<\/p>\n<p>    years and 3 years on the date of the petition are so<\/p>\n<p>    meager. We are certainly of the opinion that the appellate<\/p>\n<p>    jurisdiction under Section 19 cannot and need not be<\/p>\n<p>    invoked to interfere with the quantum fixed.          Even<\/p>\n<p>    assuming the appellant to be just an able bodied person<\/p>\n<p>    (he is stated to be a construction worker), the quantum of<\/p>\n<p>    maintenance awarded      cannot be held to be excessive.<\/p>\n<p>    Going by the indications available about the needs of the<\/p>\n<p>    claimants and the means of the appellant, we are satisfied<\/p>\n<p>    that the challenge against the quantum must also fail.<\/p>\n<p>          8. We are thus convinced that the appeal is without<\/p>\n<p>    any merit and that there is no sufficient reason advanced<\/p>\n<p>    to justify the prayer for condonation of the long delay of<\/p>\n<p>    443 days. We are convinced that the admission of the<\/p>\n<p>    appeal and an invitation to the respondent to appear<\/p>\n<p>    before this court to defend the impugned decree is<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">Mat.Appeal No.931\/2010        5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    absolutely unnecessary.         No court with sensibility,<\/p>\n<p>    compassion and concern for the plight of the respondents<\/p>\n<p>    can    direct    admission  and     issue  notice  in  these<\/p>\n<p>    proceedings.      We are hence persuaded to dismiss this<\/p>\n<p>    petition and the appeal illimine.\n<\/p>\n<p>           In the result, the petition for condonation of delay is<\/p>\n<p>    dismissed. Consequently, the appeal shall stand rejected<\/p>\n<p>    as barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                            R.BASANT<br \/>\n                                              JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>                                     K.SURENDRA MOHAN<br \/>\n                                             JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>    css\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Divakaran vs Shylaja on 23 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Mat.Appeal.No. 931 of 2010() 1. DIVAKARAN,AGED 55 YEARS,S\/O.NARAYANAN, &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. SHYLAJA,AGED 47 YEARS,D\/O.SARASAMMA, &#8230; Respondent 2. ABHIJITH,(MINOR),REP;BY HIS MOTHER- 3. ASWAJITH,(MINOR),REP.BY HIS MOTHER- For Petitioner :SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR (KALLESSERIL) For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon&#8217;ble [&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-82851","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Divakaran vs Shylaja on 23 November, 2010 - 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\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Divakaran vs Shylaja on 23 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-01T17:29:23+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=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Divakaran vs Shylaja on 23 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-01T17:29:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":807,\"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\\\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Divakaran vs Shylaja on 23 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-01T17:29:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Divakaran vs Shylaja on 23 November, 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":"Divakaran vs Shylaja on 23 November, 2010 - 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\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Divakaran vs Shylaja on 23 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-01T17:29:23+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":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Divakaran vs Shylaja on 23 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-01T17:29:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010"},"wordCount":807,"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\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010","name":"Divakaran vs Shylaja on 23 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-01T17:29:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divakaran-vs-shylaja-on-23-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Divakaran vs Shylaja on 23 November, 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\/82851","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=82851"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82851\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82851"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82851"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82851"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}