{"id":89697,"date":"2006-01-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-01-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006"},"modified":"2016-08-18T23:06:37","modified_gmt":"2016-08-18T17:36:37","slug":"mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006","title":{"rendered":"Mathew Oommen vs Suseela Mathew on 3 January, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mathew Oommen vs Suseela Mathew on 3 January, 2006<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Kumar<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B.P. Singh, Arun Kumar<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2034 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nMathew Oommen\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSuseela Mathew\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/01\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nB.P. SINGH &amp; ARUN KUMAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>ARUN KUMAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appellant filed a petition for grant of letters of<br \/>\nadministration in respect of a Will said to have been executed<br \/>\nby his father Late K.O. Mathew.  K.O. Mathew was a practicing<br \/>\nadvocate of the local Bar.  The will in question is said to have<br \/>\nbeen executed on 15.10.1984.  The testator died on<br \/>\n24.10.1984.  The appellant is the sole beneficiary under the<br \/>\nwill.  The testator was survived by three children i.e. son, the<br \/>\nappellant herein and two daughters named Suseela, the<br \/>\ncontesting respondent, and Leela.  Both the daughters were<br \/>\nmarried during the lifetime of the testator and admittedly had<br \/>\nbeen well provided for at the time of their marriage by the<br \/>\nfather.  Respondent is the only contestant, who herself is an<br \/>\nofficer in the local Electricity Board while her husband was an<br \/>\nofficer in the Army.  The other daughter Leela is a practicing<br \/>\ndoctor with MD qualification.  The second daughter is not a<br \/>\nparty to the proceedings.  She never contestd the Will of her<br \/>\nfather.  The parties are Christians and were  governed by the<br \/>\nTravancore Christian Succession Act, 1917.  Under this Act<br \/>\nwhen a daughter is married and she is given Rs.5000\/- or<br \/>\nmore at the time of marriage, she has no  right of inheritance<br \/>\nin her father&#8217;s estate.  Respondent Suseela had admitted in<br \/>\nher statement as DW 1 that her father had given her<br \/>\nRs.30,000\/- and 45 gold sovereigns at the time of her<br \/>\nmarriage.  However,  a question of validity of the Travancore<br \/>\nChristian Succession Act, 1917 had been raised and a writ<br \/>\npetition in this behalf was pending in this court at the relevant<br \/>\ntime.  The testator who was himself a lawyer knew about the<br \/>\npendency of the writ petition challenging the said Act and was<br \/>\ntherefore, aware of the fact that in the event of the said Act<br \/>\nbeing declared illegal, his daughters would become entitled to<br \/>\nshare in his estate.    This could be the reason that he<br \/>\nexecuted the Will in question.\n<\/p>\n<p> The Will Exhibit A1 is hand written and is on a letter<br \/>\nhead of the testator.  It is in the hand writing of his junior<br \/>\nnamed George Vallakalil.  It bears the signature of the testator<br \/>\nas well as of one Oommen who has signed as a witness.  Both<br \/>\nthe witnesses to the Will are the distant relations of the<br \/>\ntestator.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appellant applied for grant of Letters of<br \/>\nAdministration with respect to the Will. On publication of the<br \/>\nnotice of the petition for grant of letters of administration with<br \/>\nrespect to the Will, respondent Suseela filed her objection<br \/>\nopposing the grant of letters of administration.  The<br \/>\npropounder of the Will is the son of the testator while the<br \/>\ncontestant is the daughter of the testator.  Thus both the<br \/>\nparties are real brother and sister.  The trial Court held that<br \/>\nthe Will Exhibit A1 appears to have been written in a natural<br \/>\nflow.  It refuted the stand of the objector that it had been<br \/>\nprepared on a blank signed paper left by K.O. Mathew.  The<br \/>\ninteresting part is that signatures of the testator on the Will<br \/>\nare not disputed by the respondent. Her only case is that the<br \/>\nWill has been prepared on a signed blank letter pad.  The trial<br \/>\nCourt rejected the theory of fabrication of the Will.  The trial<br \/>\nCourt observed that the testator was a leading advocate and it<br \/>\nwas untenable that he would leave blank signed letter heads<br \/>\non his table.  In fact, respondent who appeared as DW 1<br \/>\nadmitted that her father    did   not    usually    leave signed<br \/>\nblank letter heads.  PW 1 who is the scribe as well as attesting<br \/>\nwitness of the Will was admittedly working as junior with the<br \/>\nlate testator.  His presence at the time of execution of the Will<br \/>\nappears to be natural.  He was working in the office of testator<br \/>\nas his junior.  The senior must have given his mind about<br \/>\nexecution of the Will and as per instructions  of his senior, the<br \/>\nWill must have been scribed by the junior advocate.  Both the<br \/>\nattesting witnesses of the Will  have appeared as PW 1 and PW\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  They have fully supported the Will by stating necessary<br \/>\nfacts.  In fact, PW 1 who is scribe of the Will stated that he<br \/>\nread the Will to the testator after he had written it in his own<br \/>\nhand.  After reading and signing the Will, the testator returned<br \/>\nthe Will to PW 1 who signed it thereafter in the presence of the<br \/>\ntestator.  Thereafter the PW 1 handed over the Will to PW 2<br \/>\nwho also signed it in the presence of testator.  PW 2 stated<br \/>\nthat he was present throughout the execution of the Will.  The<br \/>\ntrial Court held the Will to be genuine and granted the letters<br \/>\nof administration with respect to the Will Exhibit A1.<br \/>\n\tBy a strange and wholly untenable reasoning the High<br \/>\nCourt set aside the well considered judgment of the trial Court<br \/>\nand rejected the Will.  According to the High Court, the<br \/>\nlanguage of the Will is not  normal. Secondly, the High Court<br \/>\nobserved that if the testator wanted to execute a Will he could<br \/>\nhave done so in a proper manner.  Thirdly, the High Court<br \/>\nobserved that in view of the Travancore Christian Succession<br \/>\nAct, 1917, the testator who was himself an advocate, knew<br \/>\nthat there was no need for a Will, why should testator make it?<br \/>\n\tWe have perused the photocopy of the Will which is on<br \/>\nrecord.  It is a short Will and is reproduced as under:<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n(TYPED COPY OF ANNEXURE-P1)\n\"K.O. MATHEW  B.A., B.L.\t\t\t\t\tPhone \nNo.246\n\tADVOCATE\t\t\t\t\t\tMAVELIKARA\n\tVALLAKALIL\t\t\t\t\t\t\tKERALA\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tWill  executed by K.O. Mathew, Advocate, Vallakalil,<br \/>\nMavelikara.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tI am executing this will with a free mind and independent<br \/>\ndecision. I have two daughters who had been married and they<br \/>\nwere given their due shares.  Therefore I hereby bequeath all<br \/>\nmy assets including my residence and its premises extending<br \/>\n1 acre 52 = cents comprised in Sy. Nos.138 and 139 to my<br \/>\nson Mathew Oommen.  My wife will be entitled to reside in the<br \/>\nbuilding and take the income from the above property.<br \/>\n\tSigned this the 15th day of October, 1984 in the presence<br \/>\nof<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-  K.O. Mathew\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tWritten by George Vallakalil, Advocate  Sd\/-<\/p>\n<pre>\n2.\tWitness \t\tK.C. Oommen\nVallakalil Kalapurail\nKuttempuram.      Sd\/-\n\n\/True copy\/\"\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tWe find nothing abnormal or unnatural in the above<br \/>\ndocument.  There  is nothing unnatural in a senior advocate of<br \/>\nadvance age to ask his junior advocate to write down<br \/>\nsomething which he would like to be written.  This must have<br \/>\nhappened in the present case.   Regarding the other  question<br \/>\nthat there was no need to make a Will in view of the<br \/>\nTravancore Christian Succession Act, 1917, we are of the view<br \/>\nthat it was all the more important for the testator to make the<br \/>\nWill because as a senior advocate he knew that the validity of<br \/>\nthe Act had been questioned in this Court and in the event of<br \/>\nthe Act being declared invalid, the course of inheritance would<br \/>\nchange and daughters would get a share in his estate, which<br \/>\nhe did not want.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned counsel for the respondent argued that the last<br \/>\nfew words in the body of the Will appear to have been<br \/>\nsqueezed in.  We are unable to accept this submission.  A bare<br \/>\nperusal of the Will is sufficient to reject this plea.  The<br \/>\nsignatures of the testator on the Will are not disputed.  The<br \/>\nstatements of PW 1 and PW 2 as attesting witnesses of the Will<br \/>\nare quite natural and trustworthy.  One of the attesting<br \/>\nwitnesses was the junior advocate working with testator in his<br \/>\noffice.  He has also scribed the Will.  He has appeared as PW 1<br \/>\nto support the execution of the Will.  He states that he is an<br \/>\nattesting witness to the Will as well as scribe of the Will.  The<br \/>\nother attesting witness has also appeared as PW 2.  He is a<br \/>\ndistant relation of the testator.  From all this we find execution<br \/>\nof the Will quite natural and normal.  We are unable to accept<br \/>\nthe contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that a<br \/>\nsenior lawyer will not discuss about the Will with his junior.  It<br \/>\nwas also suggested that nothing prevented the testator from<br \/>\nwriting the Will himself.  This is no ground to reject a Will<br \/>\nwhich is otherwise perfect.\n<\/p>\n<p> Another circumstance mentioned by the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the respondent for challenging the Will is that the<br \/>\nbeneficiary never applied for probate or for mutation of the<br \/>\nproperty in his name  soon after the death of the father.  This<br \/>\nagain is no reason to dislodge the Will.  The learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the respondent also argued that the Will had not been<br \/>\nattested by two attesting witnesses as required under the law.<br \/>\nIn support of this argument it was submitted that one of the<br \/>\nalleged attesting witness is only scribe of the Will and is not<br \/>\nattesting witness.  Regarding this objection we may note that<br \/>\nthere is no requirement in law that a scribe cannot be an<br \/>\nattesting witness.  The person concerned has appeared in the<br \/>\nwitness box as PW 1 and has clearly stated that he is a scribe<br \/>\nof the Will as well as he is an attesting witness of the Will.  For<br \/>\nattestation what is required is an intention to attest which is<br \/>\nclear from the statement of PW 1.  He categorically stated that<br \/>\nhe has signed as an attestor and scribe.  In our view, the<br \/>\nrequirement of attestation of the Will by two witnesses is fully<br \/>\nmet in the present case.   After the execution was complete,<br \/>\nthe testator kept the Will in the drawer of his table.    PW 1<br \/>\nhas also mentioned the fact that the Will was executed<br \/>\nbecause the case was pending in this Court challenging<br \/>\nTravancore Christian Succession Act, 1917.  The testator who<br \/>\nwas himself a lawyer knew this fact.  A perusal of the<br \/>\nstatements of PW1, PW2 and PW3 further shows that they<br \/>\nhave not been cross examined on the points now sought to be<br \/>\nurged before this Court.  It was never suggested to the<br \/>\nwitnesses that the Will was scribed on a blank letter head<br \/>\ncontaining signatures of the testator.  It was never suggested<br \/>\nthat the Will had been fabricated.\n<\/p>\n<p> It is not necessary to go into the judgments cited by the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for respondent which lay down requirements<br \/>\nfor attestation of Wills.  We find no merit in any of the<br \/>\ncontentions raised on behalf of objector, the respondent<br \/>\nherein.  The impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be<br \/>\nsustained.  The same is accordingly set aside and that of the<br \/>\ntrial Court is restored.  The appeal is allowed and stands<br \/>\ndisposed of accordingly.  No order as to cost.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Mathew Oommen vs Suseela Mathew on 3 January, 2006 Author: A Kumar Bench: B.P. Singh, Arun Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2034 of 2003 PETITIONER: Mathew Oommen RESPONDENT: Suseela Mathew DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/01\/2006 BENCH: B.P. SINGH &amp; ARUN KUMAR JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT ARUN KUMAR, J. The appellant filed a petition for [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-89697","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mathew Oommen vs Suseela Mathew on 3 January, 2006 - 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\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mathew Oommen vs Suseela Mathew on 3 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-01-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-18T17:36:37+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mathew Oommen vs Suseela Mathew on 3 January, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-18T17:36:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1773,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006\",\"name\":\"Mathew Oommen vs Suseela Mathew on 3 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-18T17:36:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mathew Oommen vs Suseela Mathew on 3 January, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Mathew Oommen vs Suseela Mathew on 3 January, 2006 - 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\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mathew Oommen vs Suseela Mathew on 3 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-01-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-18T17:36:37+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mathew Oommen vs Suseela Mathew on 3 January, 2006","datePublished":"2006-01-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-18T17:36:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006"},"wordCount":1773,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006","name":"Mathew Oommen vs Suseela Mathew on 3 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-01-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-18T17:36:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-oommen-vs-suseela-mathew-on-3-january-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mathew Oommen vs Suseela Mathew on 3 January, 2006"}]},{"@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\/89697","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=89697"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89697\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89697"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89697"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89697"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}