{"id":94215,"date":"2011-07-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011"},"modified":"2018-07-03T05:22:59","modified_gmt":"2018-07-02T23:52:59","slug":"pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Pooja vs The on 6 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Pooja vs The on 6 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Jayant Patel, R.M.Chhaya,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nMCA\/1124\/2011\t 12\/ 12\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nMISC.CIVIL\nAPPLICATION - FOR CONTEMPT No. 1124 of 2011\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nPOOJA\nABHISHEK GOYAL NEE POOJA ASHOK GUPTA - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nABHISHEK\nASHWINI GOYAL - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nBOMI H SETHNA for\nApplicant(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1, \nMR MB\nGANDHI for Opponent(s) : 1, \nMR SUNIL M AGRAWAL for Opponent(s) :\n1, \nMR CHINMAY M GANDHI for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 06\/07\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)<\/p>\n
1.\tThe
\nbasis of the present petition is non compliance to the order passed
\nby the learned Single Judge dated 22.10.2010 in Special Criminal
\nApplication No. 2429 of 2009 with Special Criminal Application No.
\n2430 of 2009 with Special Criminal Application No. 278 of 2010
\nwhereby the order of the learned Magistrate for interim maintenance
\nunder the provisions of The Protection of Women from Domestic
\nViolence Act, 2005 has been modified and further direction
\nhas been given.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tWe
\nhave heard Mr. Kavina for the petitioner and Mr. Gandhi for
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tIt
\nis an admitted position that after the order passed by the learned
\nSingle Judge of this Court, the matter was carried before the Apex
\nCourt vide proceedings  of SLP No.585-587 of 2011 and the Apex Court
\nvide order dated  7.2.2011 dismissed the said SLP. Under the
\ncircumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court
\nhas remained in operation.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tFurther,
\nsince the amount of interim maintenance was not deposited the
\napplication is made by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate
\nbeing Criminal Misc. Application No. 1110 of 2009 for execution and
\nimplementation of the order. It has been stated in the application
\nthat as on that day i.e. 18.12.2010 the amount of maintenance  not
\npaid is of Rs.4,78,871\/-. Below the said application, after hearing,
\nthe learned Magistrate has passed an order on 3.1.2011 whereby the
\nrespondent was directed to deposit 50% of the amount of Rs.4,78,871\/-
\nwithin fifteen days and the remaining amount of 50% within fifteen
\ndays thereafter. It is also an admitted position that the said order
\nhas not been complied with. Mr. Gandhi, learned Counsel appearing for
\nthe respondent submitted that the revision is preferred before the
\nlearned Sessions Judge against the order dated 3.1.2011 but he fairly
\nconceded that no stay against the implementation of the order of the
\nlearned Magistrate has been granted. Under the circumstances, we find
\nthat in absence of any stay granted by the learned Sessions Judge in
\nthe said revision, the order of the learned Magistrate directing the
\nrespondent to deposit the amount also operates.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tAnother
\nimportant aspect is that after this Court entertained the matter and
\nissued notice, affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondent in
\nthe present proceedings wherein at paragraph no.7 the following
\nstatement on oath has been made;\n<\/p>\n
“Infact, the respondent
\nhad submitted on oath to the Hon’ble Court that he was jobless and
\n ignoring the same, and disbelieving the same,
\nthe Hon’ble Court passed an order of maintenance against the
\nhusband”.\n<\/p>\n
                 (Emphasis
\nsupplied)<\/p>\n
Further
\nin the said paragraph even in respect to the order of the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court, it has been mentioned as under :\n<\/p>\n
“The said appeal was
\ndismissed  without any reasoning or comments on merits of the
\ncase.”\n<\/p>\n
                   (Emphasis
\nsupplied)<\/p>\n
Further
\nit is stated as under :\n<\/p>\n
“So, the husband is
\ncompletely helpless and isnot deliberately ignoring the order of
\nHon’ble High Court, but is in fact waiting for justice from Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court of India and  he has suffered irreparable damages due
\nto the order dated October 22,2010, in Special Criminal Application
\nNo. 2429 of 2009 (with Special Criminal Application No. 2430 of 2009
\nwith Special  Criminal Application No. 278 of 2010) given by
\nHon’ble High Court of Gujarat.\n<\/p>\n
                    (Emphasis
\nsupplied)<\/p>\n
Further,
\nat paragraph No. 17 it has been stated as under :\n<\/p>\n
“In view of the above,
\n it can be clearly seen that the the impugned order, has put the
\nrespondent in grave trauma and he is prejudiced.”\n<\/p>\n
               (Emphasis
\nsupplied)<\/p>\n
6.\tThe
\naforesaid, in our prima facie view can be termed as contemptuous
\nlanguage used against the Hon’ble Judge of this Court as well it can
\nbe said against the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tApart
\nfrom the above, it further appears that this Court on 20.6.2011 at
\nparagraph No.1 had observed thus :\n<\/p>\n
“1.It
\nprima-facie appears from the order passed by the Ld. Single Judge of
\nthis Court in Special Criminal Application No. 2429 of 2009 with
\nSpecial Criminal Application No. 2430 of 2009 with Special Criminal
\nApplication No. 278 of 2010 that in the recent past  the respondent
\nhad huge income and now in the affidavit-in-reply it is contended
\nthat he is having meagre income and ground of incapacity is also
\nsought to be canvassed. We would have considered the matter further,
\nhowever, Mr. Gandhi, Ld. Counsel for the respondent states that he
\nwould require time to produce
\nbalance-sheet of his accounts keeping in view the income derived
\nduring the earlier period and its appropriation. Such, respondent may
\ndo so on or before 24\/06\/2011”.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThereafter,
\nthe respondent had to file an affidavit by making bonafide disclosure
\nof his all assets and the bank account but in the affidavit dated
\n27.6.2011 the details of the expenses are given but the availability
\nof money in the other bank accounts has not been given and to say
\nrather suppressed. The said suppressed facts came to light only  when
\nthe additional affidavit dated 1.7.2011 has been filed by the
\npetitioner wherein the details of various bank accounts, LIC policy
\netc., are narrated at paragraph no.4(a) to 4(h). The respondent in
\nthe affidavit filed today has admitted the existence of majority of
\nthe bank accounts but not admitted the balance details. This prima
\nfacie shows that there was suppression of material fact by the
\nrespondent at the relevant point of time when the earlier affidavit
\nwas filed on the aspects of breach and non compliance of the order of
\nthis Hon’ble Court as well as of the learned Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIt
\nappears that it is not a matter simplicitor where the learned
\nMagistrate passed an order for interim maintenance and the same is
\nconfirmed by the Court but is a case where this Court partly modified
\nthe order of the learned Magistrate and also issued certain
\ndirections which for ready reference are at paragraph no.8.0 of the
\norder dated 22.10.2010 as under:\n<\/p>\n
“8.0\t\tIn
\nthe result, all the petitions are DISPOSED of  with the
\nfollowing directions:\n<\/p>\n
(1) <\/span><\/p>\n
The order of the learned Presiding Officer, Fact Track Court No.2,
\nAhmedabad(Rural), Mirzapur, dated 25.09.2009, passed in
\nCriminal Appeal No.25 of 2009, is QUASHED,
\norder of the  Magistrate dated 22.05.2009 is restored with the
\nMODIFICATION
\nthat AMOUNTS
\nPAYABLE thereunder
\nshall be from the date of the application i.e. 21.03.2009.\n<\/p>\n
(2) <\/span><\/p>\n
Under the said order passed by the learned Magistrate under the
\nprovisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the wife is entitled to
\nreceive Rs.25,000\/- per month towards interim maintenance and
\nRs.15,000\/- towards rent, for suitable accommodation.\n<\/p>\n
(3) <\/span><\/p>\n
The wife, however, shall receive rent, ONLY IF, she resides
\nseparately in  RENTED PREMISES.  For this purpose, the husband
\nshall deposit a sum of Rs.30,000\/-, before the learned
\nMagistrate, towards advance rent for two months. If the wife produces
\nrent receipt of a particular month along with her affidavit, the
\namount of such rent up to a maximum of Rs.15,000\/- shall be released
\nin her favour, upon which the husband shall again deposit alternate
\namount to restore the balance of Rs.30,000\/- before the learned
\nMagistrate so that, at all times, the amount towards advance rent for
\ntwo months shall be lying with the learned Magistrate. However, the
\nwife shall NOT be entitled to RECEIVE any amount of
\nrent for the period, during which she stayed with her parents or not
\nin rented premises.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\t\tIn
\nview of the above provisions for interim maintenance and rent, under
\nthe proceedings in Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
\n2005, further ENHANCEMENT is NOT NECESSARY in the
\nproceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
(5) <\/span><\/p>\n
The amount received by the wife, under the interim order passed by
\nthis Court in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from
\nDomestic Violence Act, 2005, shall be ADJUSTED against the
\nhusband’s LIABILITY to pay arrears, as per this order.\n<\/p>\n
(6)<\/span><\/p>\n
 The learned Magistrate shall endeavor to dispose of the pending
\nproceedings EXPEDITIOUSLY
\nand shall pass final order, unmindful of any observation made in this
\norder.\n<\/p>\n
Application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure shall be decided, THEREAFTER.”\n<\/p>\n
10.\tTherefore,
\nif the order of this Court is not complied with  it would be prima
\nfacie a case of contempt for non implementation of the order passed
\nby this Court. Aforesaid is coupled with the circumstance that the
\norder of the learned Magistrate directing him to deposit the amount
\nin the execution proceedings has also not been complied with. Rule
\n6(5) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006
\n reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
“6. Applications to the
\nMagistrate.-\n<\/p>\n
 (1)    xxx     xxx     xxx\n \n\n\n (2)    xxx     xxx     xxx\n \n\n\n (3)    xxx     xxx     xxx\n \n\n\n (4)    xxx     xxx     xxx\n \n\n\n (5)<\/span>\n<\/pre>\n
 The applications under section 12 shall be dealt with and the orders
\nenforced in the same manner laid down under section 125 of the Code
\nof Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)”.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t If
\nthe order for interim maintenance is dealt with as per provisions of
\nSection 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, sub-section (3) of
\nsection 125 provides for not only issuance of the warrant but putting
\nthe person into imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month
\nor until the payment if sooner made.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t In
\nview of the aforesaid peculiar circumstances of non compliance and
\nbreach of the order of this Court read with order of the learned
\nMagistrate for directing him to deposit the amount, we find that this
\nCourt while exercising the power under the Contempt of Courts Act for
\nthe aforesaid breach and non compliance may be required to pass the
\norder for imprisonment until the payment is made subject to the
\nlimitation of one month and the extension thereof from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tAs
\nobserved earlier, apart from the alleged breach and non compliance of
\nthe order of the learned Single Judge of this Court and  the learned
\nMagistrate, the additional aspect in the present case is that the
\nrespondent has gone to the extent of using the contemptuous language
\nagainst the exercise of the power by this Court in the criminal
\njurisdiction as well as exercise of the power by the Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tWe
\nwould have dealt with the matter under section 14 of the Contempt of
\nCourt Act, since using of the contemptuous language against  the
\nexercise of power by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court could
\nbe said as prima facie contempt and to further consider the case for
\ntaking the respondent into custody. However, at that stage Mr.
\nGandhi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, under the
\ninstructions of the respondent, who is present in the Court states
\nthat the respondent is desirous to show his bonafide by depositing
\nthe amount in part and if this Court is inclined to consider the same
\nby taking a lenient view at this stage leaving exercise of power
\nunder section 14 at the later stage. Mr. Gandhi also declared under
\nthe instructions of his client that the amount of Rs.1,00,000\/-
\n(Rupees One lac only) shall be deposited on or before 08.07.2011 in
\nthe Registry of this Court and shall further deposit the amount of
\nRs.1,00,000\/- (Rupees One lac only) within two weeks thereafter with
\nthis Court on or before 25.7.2011 and he submits that the matter may
\nbe considered thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tAs
\nsuch, if the respondent is to show bonafide in compliance with the
\norder, may be in part, the matter can be considered at the later
\nstage. However, in view of the aforesaid prima facie observation that
\nthe respondent could be said as having committed contempt before the
\nCourt in the proceedings by using contemptuous language as referred
\nto hereinabove, we find that at this stage, instead of taking the
\nrespondent into the custody, he shall be released on furnishing a
\nbond with solvent security amounting to Rs.50,000\/- (Rupees Fifty
\nthousand only) and such bond shall be furnished before the Police
\nInspector, Sola Police Station with a further direction that the
\nrespondent shall surrender his Passport on or befroe 08.07.2011 with
\nthe Registry of this Court and shall remain personally present in the
\nCourt on the next date which is fixed on 12.07.2011.\n<\/p>\n
16  S.O.\n<\/p>\n
to 12.07.2011 for reporting compliance of the order.\n<\/p>\n
                                      Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                (Jayant
\nPatel, J.)<\/p>\n
                                       Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                 (R.M.\n<\/p>\n
Chhaya, J.)<\/p>\n
 M.M.BHATT<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Pooja vs The on 6 July, 2011 Author: Jayant Patel, R.M.Chhaya, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print MCA\/1124\/2011 12\/ 12 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION – FOR CONTEMPT No. 1124 of 2011 ========================================================= POOJA ABHISHEK GOYAL NEE POOJA ASHOK GUPTA – Applicant(s) Versus ABHISHEK ASHWINI […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94215","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPooja vs The on 6 July, 2011 - 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\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pooja vs The on 6 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-07-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-02T23:52:59+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\\\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pooja vs The on 6 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-02T23:52:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1995,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Pooja vs The on 6 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-02T23:52:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pooja vs The on 6 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Pooja vs The on 6 July, 2011 - 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\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pooja vs The on 6 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-02T23:52:59+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\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pooja vs The on 6 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-02T23:52:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011"},"wordCount":1995,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011","name":"Pooja vs The on 6 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-02T23:52:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pooja-vs-the-on-6-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pooja vs The on 6 July, 2011"}]},{"@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\/94215","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=94215"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94215\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94215"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94215"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94215"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}