The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of S.29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and its impact on the dissolution of marriage under the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1933.

Legal lacings apart, the question is whether the appellant or first respondent in these Appeals (hereinafter called Saraswathy Amma and Padmavathy Amma, in that order) was the wife of deceased Krishnan Nair.

2. On Krishnankutty Nair's death, Padmavathy Amma filed O.S.318/83 for a declaration that she was his wife. Likewise, Saraswathy Amma filed O.S.439/83 for a like declaration. The trial court held that both were wives of Krishnankutty Nair. The appellate Court held that Padmavathy Amma was the wife, and that the marriage with Saraswathy Amma was not valid. Krishnankutty Nair married Padmavathy Amma in the year 1950 (date and month not slated) according to the custom of the community. Thereafter, they executed a Deed of Dissolution Ext. XI on 17-2-1976 in accordance with S.6 of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act. Krishnankutty Nair then married Saraswathy Amma on 15-9-1977. Ext.B1 is the certificate of marriage. Later, Krishnankutty Nair made a settlement of some of his properties in favour of Padmavathy Amma on 14-9-1979 by Ext.AZ, describing her as his wife. On 25-6-1983 Krishnankutty Nair died, raising the hornet's nest for the two women.

3. On the strength of Ext.A4-A certificate of heir ship dated 28-10-1983 issued by a Tahsildar, Ext.A2 settlement and Exts. A5 to A7 letters, 'Padmava thy Amma contended that she was the widow of Krishnankutty Nair, entitled to inherit his properties, including service benefits. Saraswathy Amma, mainly on the strength of Ext.B1 certificate of marriage, also contended that she was the wife of deceased Krishnankutty Nair. As noticed, the appellate Court held that the marriage between Padmavathy Amma and Krishnankutty Nair subsisted, that Ext.X1 was sham, and that the marriage between Krishnankutly Nair and Saraswathy Amma was invalid, for these reasons.

4. Learned counsel for Saraswathy Amma contended that a Marumakkathayam governed by the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1933, was entotic. to dissolve his marriage by recourse to S.6 of that Act. That Section postulates two modes of dissolution - one with the aid of the Court, and the other by execution of a registered instrument of dissolution upon the consent of the parties (S.6 (a)). Marumakkathayam Act stood repealed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, called the' 'H.M. A.ct' hereinafter. Thereafter, the Kerala ioint Hindu Family Abolition Act 1976 was also enacted. S.4 of the H.M.Act states that, 'any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of that Act, will cease to have effect, unless otherwise saved by the Act'. S.4(b) further states that 'any law in force at the commencement of the H.M. Act shall cease to have effect in so far as it was inconsistent with any provision of the H.M. Act'. S.13 of the H.M. Act deals with divorce, end states the grounds upon which a marriage could be dissolved.

5. Counsel for Sairaswathy Amma submits that by reason of S.29(2) of the H-M. Act, S.6 of the Marumakkathayam Act Is saved from exposure to S.4. On the contrary, counsel for Padmavathy Amma submits that S.29 saves only the right 'to' dissolution. S.29(2) reads:

"Nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect any right recognised by custom or conferred by any special enactment to obtain the dissolution of the Hindu Marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this act." (emphasis supplied)

6. A Division Bench of this court in Kesavanv. Krishnamma (1985 KLT 17) held that a cause of action that arose prior to repeal, would remain in force despite repeal. In Gopalakrishnan v. Sarasamma (AIR 1980 Ker.109) this court held that the right to obtain divorce under the Nair Act would remain in force by reason of S.29 of the H.M. Act. Shri. N. Subramanian, Counsel for Padmavathy Amma, who argued his case with thoroughness, relying on a decision of this court in A.K. Krishna Filial v. P.A. Subhadra Amma (1970 KLT 442), submitted that what, is save