{"id":8560,"date":"2010-05-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010"},"modified":"2018-12-22T22:49:00","modified_gmt":"2018-12-22T17:19:00","slug":"k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"K.Andu Rahiman vs Noorjahan on 24 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.Andu Rahiman vs Noorjahan on 24 May, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 1762 of 2002()\n\n\n1. K.ANDU RAHIMAN, S\/O.ALI, VALANCHERY,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. NOORJAHAN, D\/O.KARUNADAN AHAMMED, MONGAM\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.JOJI MATHEW\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :24\/05\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                             R.BASANT, J\n                      ------------------------------------\n                   Crl.R.P No.1762 of 2002 (C)\n                     -------------------------------------\n               Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010\n\n                                O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      What is the correct concept of the payment                    under<\/p>\n
Section 3(1)(b) of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on<\/p>\n
Divorce) Act, 1986 ?\n<\/p>\n
This interesting question arises incidentally in this case.<\/p>\n
      2.  This revision petition is directed against an order<\/p>\n
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Manjeri, enhancing the<\/p>\n
quantum of fair and reasonable provision which the petitioner<\/p>\n
was ordered to pay under Section 3 of Muslim Women<\/p>\n
(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.<\/p>\n
      3.  The relevant facts can be narrated as follows. The<\/p>\n
petitioner and the respondent were spouses.                  The petitioner<\/p>\n
divorced the respondent on 04.07.1997. At the time of divorce, 2<\/p>\n
children born in the wedlock were with the respondent and the<\/p>\n
respondent was looking after the said children. The children<\/p>\n
were born on 17.04.1995 and 13.04.1997 respectively. Amounts<\/p>\n
were claimed towards:\n<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P No.1762 of 2002            2<\/span><\/p>\n
       i)    Maintenance during the period of Iddat;\n<\/p>\n
       ii)   Amounts for the wife for maintaining the 2 children<\/p>\n
until the children attain the age of 2 years; and<\/p>\n
       iii)  Reasonable provision for the wife after divorce.<\/p>\n
       4.    Before the learned Magistrate, the claim was resisted.<\/p>\n
Marriage, divorce and the fact that 2 children were there at the<\/p>\n
time of divorce were not disputed. There is virtually no dispute<\/p>\n
about the age\/date of birth of the children.            The trial court<\/p>\n
directed payment of the following amounts.\n<\/p>\n
       i)    Maintenance during the period\n             of iddat                         - Rs. 3,000\/-\n             (3 X 1,000)\n\n       ii)   Maintenance till\n             the children attain 2 years\n             (Rs.3,600 X 2 children)          - Rs. 7,200)\n\n<\/pre>\n
       iii.  Matah, ie. reasonable provision – Rs.48,400\/-\n<\/p>\n
             (Basis not revealed specifically)
\n                                              ………………..<\/p>\n
                                   Total      : Rs.58,600\/-\n                                              ....................\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
       5.    There was a contention that a further amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.44,5000\/- had already been paid. The wife admitted receipt of<\/p>\n
the said amount of Rs.44,500\/- by demand draft, but asserted<\/p>\n
that, that amount was not paid for the discharge of the liability<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P No.1762 of 2002             3<\/span><\/p>\n
towards the amounts claimed in the petition. Nothing was made<\/p>\n
available to controvert that assertion of the wife. The learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate accepted that assertion.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       6.    Both parties approached the Sessions Court in<\/p>\n
revision. The Sessions Court, by the impugned order, enhanced<\/p>\n
the amount of reasonable provision awarded by the court below.<\/p>\n
The same was enhanced from Rs.48,400\/- to Rs.96,000\/-. The<\/p>\n
learned Sessions Judge took the view that 8 years can be<\/p>\n
reckoned as the multiplier and it was accordingly that<\/p>\n
Rs.96,000\/- was awarded as fair and reasonable provision. The<\/p>\n
order of the learned Magistrate was upheld on all other aspects.<\/p>\n
       7.    The Sessions Court by the impugned order directed<\/p>\n
payment of the following amount.\n<\/p>\n
       i)    Maintenance for the period of\n             Iddat\n             (3 X 1000)                       -Rs.     3,000\/-\n\n       ii)   Maintenance for the mother\n             till the children attain the age\n             of 2 years (basis not clear)    - Rs.     7,200\/-\n\n       iii)  Fair and reasonable provision    - Rs. 96,000\/-\n             (12 X 8 X 1000)\n                                              .....................\n                                        Total - Rs.1,06,200\/-\n                                              ......................\n\nCrl.R.P No.1762 of 2002          4<\/span>\n\n<\/pre>\n
       8.    Aggrieved by the enhancement of the matah amount<\/p>\n
by the learned Sessions Judge in revision, this further revision<\/p>\n
petition has been filed by the revision petitioner. According to<\/p>\n
him, the bar of Section 397(3) will not apply as he is not seeking<\/p>\n
revision of the order passed by the learned Magistrate as upheld<\/p>\n
by the Sessions Court, but he is challenging the order passed by<\/p>\n
the Sessions Court in revision. It is accordingly that this revision<\/p>\n
petition was admitted.     I agree that the revision petition is<\/p>\n
maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
       9.    Arguments have been advanced before me. The short<\/p>\n
contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner is that the Sessions Court erred grossly in reckoning 8<\/p>\n
as the multiplier and directing payment of an amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.96,000\/- (8X12X1,000) as reasonable provision for the future.<\/p>\n
There was no justification in reckoning 8 as the multiplier,<\/p>\n
argues the learned counsel for the petitioner.<\/p>\n
       10. The learned counsel for the respondent\/divorced wife<\/p>\n
on the contrary contends that the total amount of Rs.1,06,200\/-<\/p>\n
awarded to the wife by the learned Sessions Judge in the order<\/p>\n
sought to be revised is too meagre and inadequate. It is much<\/p>\n
less than the amount which the respondent is actually entitled to.<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P No.1762 of 2002          5<\/span><\/p>\n
The learned counsel submits that the learned Sessions Judge<\/p>\n
committed no error in reckoning 8 as the multiplier. The wife<\/p>\n
was aged 27 years. She had the responsibility of maintaining 2<\/p>\n
children born on 17.04.95 and 13.04.97 when she was divorced<\/p>\n
on 04.07.97. The husband was well established. He was running<\/p>\n
a travel agency. He was admittedly the sole proprietor of the<\/p>\n
said travel agency. The wife had asserted that he has a monthly<\/p>\n
income of Rs.15,000\/-. The husband, though he denied that<\/p>\n
assertion, did not place any material before Court or make any<\/p>\n
specific assertion as to what amount he was earning every<\/p>\n
month.      With 2 infant children, there was no prospect of an<\/p>\n
immediate remarriage for the wife.       She was not employed<\/p>\n
admittedly. In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge<\/p>\n
was absolutely justified in reckoning the multiplier as 8 years<\/p>\n
and in awarding an amount of Rs.96,000\/- as reasonable<\/p>\n
provision for the future, contends counsel.<\/p>\n
       11. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that<\/p>\n
the courts below have not correctly appreciated the nature of the<\/p>\n
payment that is contemplated under Section 3(1)(b) of the<\/p>\n
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. We<\/p>\n
extract Section 3 (1) (b) below.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P No.1762 of 2002                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
             “3.     Mahr or other properties of Muslim
\n       woman to be given to her at the time of
\n       divorce–        (1)       Notwithstanding         anything
\n       contained in any other law for the time being in
\n       force, a divorced woman shall be entitled to–<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       (a)   …………………………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             …………………………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (b)   where she herself maintains the children
\n       born to her before or after her divorce, a
\n       reasonable and fair provision and maintenance
\n       to be made and paid by her former husband for
\n       a period of two years from the respective dates
\n       of birth of such children.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                            (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
The amount payable under Section 3(1)(b) is not the<\/p>\n
maintenance for the children. It is only maintenance for the<\/p>\n
wife. That is the entitlement of the wife – not her children. 3<\/p>\n
months’ maintenance has to be paid for maintenance of the wife<\/p>\n
during the period of iddat.                   But if children are born in the<\/p>\n
wedlock and the children are aged below 2 years, the divorced<\/p>\n
husband has the legal obligation under Section 3(1)(b) to<\/p>\n
maintain the wife until the last of such children attains the age<\/p>\n
of 2 years. Payment under Section 3(1)(b) is payment for the<\/p>\n
mother and not payment for the children. This is clear from the<\/p>\n
language of Section 3(1)(b) as also the commentary by Abdullah<\/p>\n
Yusuf Ali. The learned Sessions Judge had extracted Ayat 6 of<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P No.1762 of 2002            7<\/span><\/p>\n
Sura 65 of the Holy Quran in para.16 of the order in revision. It<\/p>\n
reads as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       “Let the women live
\n       (In Iddat) in the same
\n       style as ye live,
\n       According to your means:
\n       Annoy them not, so as
\n       To restrict them,
\n       And if they carry (life
\n       in their wormbs), then
\n       Spend (your substance) on them
\n       Until they deliver
\n       Their burden: and if
\n       They suckle your (offspring),
\n       Give them their recompense:
\n       And take mutual counsel
\n       Together, according to
\n       What is just and reasonable,
\n       And if ye find yourselves
\n       In difficulties, let another
\n       Woman suckle (the child)
\n       On the (father’s) behalf.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
       12. The learned Magistrate awarded the amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.7,200\/- under Section 3(1)(b) assuming the same to be<\/p>\n
amount of maintenance for the children.       This is incorrect,<\/p>\n
submits the counsel. The learned Sessions Judge understood the<\/p>\n
concept of payment correctly and observed as follows:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       “The above would indicate that what is being
\n       awarded under S.3(1) of the Act is not maintenance
\n       to the children but, the divorced woman is being
\n       compensated for suckling the children. Hence, the<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P No.1762 of 2002            8<\/span><\/p>\n
       argument of the learned counsel for the respondent
\n       in this regard cannot be accepted. The amount
\n       awarded to the petitioner on that count cannot be
\n       said to be excessive.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
But the learned Sessions Judge did not direct payment of the<\/p>\n
amount that would actually be payable for maintenance of the<\/p>\n
wife under Section 3(1)(b), complains the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent.         Rs.3,600\/- each for the 2 children and not<\/p>\n
maintenance for the wife till the children attain the age of 2<\/p>\n
years was awarded even by the Court of Revision and this is not<\/p>\n
in tune with the language and purpose of Section 3(1)(b), argues<\/p>\n
counsel.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       13. It is evident that this payment under Section 3(1)(b) of<\/p>\n
the Act is to be made for the maintenance of the wife and not for<\/p>\n
the children.       The amount paid under Section 3(1)(b) cannot<\/p>\n
absolve the husband\/father of the responsibility to pay<\/p>\n
maintenance for the children till they attain the age of 2 years.<\/p>\n
The language of Section 3(1)(b) and the stipulations in the<\/p>\n
Quran, extracted above clearly show that this payment is to be<\/p>\n
made for the wife. Attainment of 2 years by the youngest child<\/p>\n
after divorce is stipulated as the period till which the husband<\/p>\n
will have to pay maintenance to the wife.          We find this<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P No.1762 of 2002         9<\/span><\/p>\n
proposition to be absolutely correct.       The counsel hence<\/p>\n
contends that in the instant case, the husband has to pay<\/p>\n
maintenance during the period of iddat. In addition he has to<\/p>\n
pay maintenance for the wife till the children attain the age of 2<\/p>\n
years. Further he has to make fair and reasonable provision for<\/p>\n
the future of the wife. In this view of the matter, the youngest<\/p>\n
child would have attained the age of 2 years only on 13.04.1999.<\/p>\n
The divorce was on 04.07.1997. The husband hence has the<\/p>\n
obligation to pay maintenance to the wife for a period of 21<\/p>\n
months, ie. from 04.07.1997(date of divorce) to 13.04.1999 (the<\/p>\n
date on which the younger child attained the age of 2 years). At<\/p>\n
the rate accepted by the courts below, an amount of Rs.21,000\/-<\/p>\n
(21 X 1000) was hence liable to be paid as maintenance for the<\/p>\n
wife till the youngest of the 2 children attained the age of 2<\/p>\n
years. In that place, only an amount of Rs.7,200\/- has been paid.<\/p>\n
There is a deficit of Rs.13,800\/- under Section 13(1)(b) of the<\/p>\n
Act. After giving due provision for that, it can be seen that<\/p>\n
actually only an amount of Rs.82,200\/- has been paid as fair<\/p>\n
provision for the future. That would mean that the multiplier<\/p>\n
adopted is actually much below 8 years (96 months). It would be<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P No.1762 of 2002               10<\/span><\/p>\n
the maintenance payable only for a period of 82.2 months. The<\/p>\n
following statement reveals the force of this contention.<\/p>\n
                               Actually Payable     Present direction\nMaintenance     for   iddat  Rs. 3,000\/-            Rs. 3,000\/-\nperiod                       (3X1000)\n\nAmount u\/s 3(1)(b)           Rs.21,000\/-            Rs. 7,2000\/-\n\n                             (21X1000)\nReasonable provision         Rs.96,000\/-            Rs.96,000\/-\n\n                             (12X8X1000)           (12X8X1000)\n\nTotal                      Rs. 1,20,000\/-          Rs.1,06,200\/-\n\n\n                          Difference = Rs.13,800\/-\n\n<\/pre>\n
       14. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the respondent. Whereas an amount of Rs.1,20,000\/- would<\/p>\n
have been payable if the multiplier were reckoned as 8 years.,<\/p>\n
only an amount of Rs.1,06,200\/- has been directed to be paid. In<\/p>\n
any view of the matter, I am satisfied that the impugned<\/p>\n
direction to pay an amount of Rs.96,000\/- as fair and reasonable<\/p>\n
provision (which actually works out to a direction to pay 82.2<\/p>\n
months’ maintenance in all as fair and reasonable provision for<\/p>\n
the future) does not warrant interference as the total amount<\/p>\n
directed to be paid appears to be much below the actual amount<\/p>\n
to which the wife is entitled on a correct computation of the<\/p>\n
amount.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P No.1762 of 2002        11<\/span><\/p>\n
       15. This revision petition is, in these circumstances,<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                         (R.BASANT, JUDGE)
\nrtr\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.Andu Rahiman vs Noorjahan on 24 May, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1762 of 2002() 1. K.ANDU RAHIMAN, S\/O.ALI, VALANCHERY, … Petitioner Vs 1. NOORJAHAN, D\/O.KARUNADAN AHAMMED, MONGAM … Respondent 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU For Respondent :SRI.JOJI MATHEW The Hon’ble […]<\/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-8560","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Andu Rahiman vs Noorjahan on 24 May, 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\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Andu Rahiman vs Noorjahan on 24 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-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=\"2010-05-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-22T17:19:00+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\\\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Andu Rahiman vs Noorjahan on 24 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-22T17:19:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1803,\"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\\\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010\",\"name\":\"K.Andu Rahiman vs Noorjahan on 24 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-22T17:19:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Andu Rahiman vs Noorjahan on 24 May, 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":"K.Andu Rahiman vs Noorjahan on 24 May, 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\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Andu Rahiman vs Noorjahan on 24 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-22T17:19:00+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\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Andu Rahiman vs Noorjahan on 24 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-22T17:19:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010"},"wordCount":1803,"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\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010","name":"K.Andu Rahiman vs Noorjahan on 24 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-22T17:19:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-andu-rahiman-vs-noorjahan-on-24-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Andu Rahiman vs Noorjahan on 24 May, 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\/8560","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=8560"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8560\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8560"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8560"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8560"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}