The divorce deed did not dissolve the marital relationship, and the subsequent marriage was not valid. The nomination of the third defendant as a nominee was void under Section 6 of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

The unsuccessful 3rd defendant in both the courts below is the appellant.

2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Chelladurai and entitled to collect all the terminal benefits and for permanent injunction. The first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children born to the 1st plaintiff and Chelladurai. Their marriage took place on 25.08.1962 as per the custom prevailing in the Christian community and he died on 19.09.1989. The deceased was employed as a Male Nurse Orderly in the Government Headquarters Hospital at Tuticorin. He was having illicit intimacy with the 3rd defendant. Now, the 3rd defendant proclaims herself as the wife of the deceased and attempting to claim the terminal benefits payable by defendants 1 and 2. Hence, the suit.

The 3rd defendant resisted the suit and contended that the marriage between the 1st plaintiff and the deceased was divorced under a document dated 16.08.1971. The marriage between the 3rd defendant and Chelladurai took place on 04.02.1972 and the marriage was also registered. Both of them lived as husband and wife for a period of 19 years and she was also recognised as the wife of the deceased. The 3rd defendant was also employed and she had nominated Chelladurai and similarly the deceased had also nominated the 3rd defendant as his nominee. The last rites of the deceased was also performed only by her and not by the 1st plaintiff.

The trial court framed 4 issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs, 1st plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-12 were marked. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and aggrieved against this, the 3rd defendant preferred A.S.No.20 of 1993on the file of Sub Court, Tuticorin and the learned Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against this, the 3rd defendant has come forward with the present second appeal.

3. The appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration in the memorandum of grounds of appeal;

(1) Whether the lower courts erred in law in holding that the Divorce Deed dated 16.08.1971 is not valid ?

(2) Whether the lower courts erred in law in finding that the 3rd defendant / appellant is not the family member of the deceased Mr.P.Chelladurai?

(3) Whether the lower courts erred in law in holding the plaintiffs as the legal heirs of the deceased P.Chelladurai ?

(4) Whether the lower courts erred in law in holding that the nomination in favour of the 3rd defendant / appellant herein is invalid under section 6 of the Payment of Gratuity Act ?

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. There is no dispute that the marriage between P.W.1 and the deceased Chelladurai took place on 25.08.1962 as per the custom prevailing in the Christian community and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children born out of the said lawful wedlock. The deceased Chelladurai died on 19.09.1989 and the 3rd defendant claims that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and attempting to claim the terminal benefits payable by defendants 1 and 2. The deceased was employed as a Male Nurse Orderly in the Government Headquarters Hospital at Tuticorin. Now, the plaintiffs claim that they are the legal heirs of the deceased, entitled to claim the terminal benefits, whereas the 3rd defendant claims that she is the legally wedded wife. The learned counsel for the appellant / 3rd defendant contended that the courts below ought not to have rejected the divorce deed dated 16.08.1971, Ex.B-7 particularly when it is a mutually agreed deed signed by the deceased as well as P.W.1 and it was acted upon. It also failed to appreciate the fact that the intention of P.W.1 as well as the deceased was to dissolve their marriage and live separately which was promptly acted upon and continued till his death. The