IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
D. Sivadasan – Appellant
Vs.
Santha – Respondent
Mat. Appeal No. 351 of 2006
Decided On : 16-06-2017
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
1. The plaintiff in OS. No. 106/2005 on the file of the Family Court, Kottarakara is the appellant herein. The suit was filed by the appellant for a declaration that there is no legal and customary marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant and the defendant is not his wife. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff and the defendant were neighbours and they fell in love and gradually developed carnal relationship. At the time when the love between them started, the plaintiff was employed in Navy and he got employment at the age of 19. On 4.4.1968, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant came to the knowledge of the defendant's father and relatives and while they were in such relationship, the plaintiff was caught and manhandled by the defendant's father and her relatives. On account of the compulsion of the defendant's father and relatives, he agreed to marry the defendant. On the same day itself, he had taken the defendant to his house though his parents protested the same. When the plaintiff assured that he would marry her and take care of her, the defendant returned to her house. Thereafter he went to his workplace and came during August, 1968. On 12.8.1968 they executed a marriage registration agreement undertaking to live together as husband and wife. On that day itself, the defendant's father settled 73 cents of land in the joint names of the plaintiff and defendant. There was no valid marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant. At the time when the marriage agreement was executed, the plaintiff was aged 21 years and the defendant was aged 19 years. There was no customary marriage conducted by performing rituals prevailing among Thiyya community to which both of them belong. It was not registered with the SNDP Sakha of their locality. The marriage was not registered as per the Hindu Marriage Act as well. There was no exchange of rings or garlands and there was no tying of thali.
2. On 6.7.1969 the defendant gave birth to a female child by name Minimol. At the beginning of the relationship, the plaintiff did not take the defendant to his place of employment, when he came to understand some illegal relationship of the defendant, at the instance of her father, he had taken her to Visakhapatnam where he was working at that time and resided in a rental house. Thereafter he got transfer to Kochi. The second child Shine was born at Kochi on 9.4.1976. They resided together at Kochi till 1979. She was not acting as a dutiful wife or not caring for the words of the plaintiff and often going to her house without his consent. He tolerated all these things considering the welfare of the children. During 1979, he was transferred to Mumbai and he had taken the defendant and the children with him. While at Mumbai, he was affected by Epilepsy, treated in Navy Hospital and thereafter at Armed Force Medical College, Pune, and later diagnosed that Epilepsy developed due to Tuberculoma and he was discharged on medical grounds and transferred to Kochi during October 1980 and discharged from service during October 1981 with 40% disability pension. At the time of discharge, the children were studying at Central School, Kochi and they stayed in Kochi till the completion of the academic year of the children. During May, 1982, he settled at Shine Nivas in Velinallor village at Kottarakara taluk which is situated in 49 cents of property purchased by him with his funds. Till June 1983, they resided together and thereafter she deserted him and the children and started residing with one Karunakaran of Oolankunnil House, Karingannor. Thereafter they never resided together.
3. The building with 49 cents of land was purchased with his funds, but her name was also added. By spending huge amount, household articles were purchased. An amount of Rs. 11,000/- was spent for reclaiming 73 cents o
Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. The State of Maharashtra
Chakki v. Ayyappan (1988 (1) KLT 556)
Challamma v. Tilaga and others
G. Nagamma and another v. Siromanamma and another 1996 (2) SCC 25)
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (AIR 2014 SC 309)
Karedla Parthasaradhi v. Gangula Ramanamma
Kunhaliumma and others v. P.C. Rabiumma and others (1997 (2) KLJ 565)
Leelamma v. Radhakrishnan (2005 (2) KLT 212)
Madan Mohan Singh and Ors. v. Rajni Kant and Anr. (2010) 9 SCC 209
Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan
Nagubai Ammal and others v. B. Shama Rao and others (AIR 1956 SC 593)
Ranganath Parmeshwar Panditrao Modi v. Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni (1996 (7) SCC 681
S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan
Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamym (2005) 2 SCC 244)
Surjit Kaur v. Garja Singh and others
Thakur Gokalchand v. Parvin Kumari (AIR 1952 SC 231)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.