A. GANGADHARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) AN interesting question of law is raised in this appeal. The 1st defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff is his wife and his father is the 2nd defendant in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for maintenance and for recovery of jewels.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs case briefly is that the 1st defendant deserted his first wife Balanarasamma and married her in January, 1955. They lived together till 1967 when the 1st defendant began to ill-treat her and ultimately drove her out of the house.

( 3 ) THE 1st defendant denied the marriage with the plaintiff.

( 4 ) THE learned District Munsif dismissed the suit holding that the 1st defendant married the plaintiff in October, 1955 after Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, came into force on 18-5-1955, and therefore the marriage was void under Sec. 5 read with Section 11 of that Act, and consequently the plaintiff was not the legal wife of the 1st defendant entitled to any maintenance.

( 5 ) AGAINST that decree, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Judge, Cuddapah. The learned District Judge held that the 1st defendant married the plaintiff in October, 1955. So it was not valid under the Hindu Marriage Act since t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document