The main legal point established in the judgment is that the alleged Suyamariyathai Thirumanam between the plaintiff and defendant was not proved and also not valid in view of the provisions of Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

R.Karuppaiah, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 05.01.2008, passed in O.S.No.11 of 2004 on the file of the Family Court, Salem. The defendant is the appellant herein. In this Judgment, for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.11 of 2004, seeking relief of declaration that the defendant is not his wife and also for permanent injunction against the defendant in any way interfering with the family affairs of the plaintiff.

3. Brief facts that are necessary to decide the appeal are stated as under:

The plaintiff is employed as Manager, Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Chinnaseeragapadi, Salem Taluk, Salem District and is a native of R.Pudhupalayam, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District and before that, he served as Branch Manager, Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Masakkalipatti during the period between 1975 to 1991 and when he was serving as Branch Manager, Masakkalipatti, he got married one Thilagam, and has got a daughter by name V. Ambika and a son by name V.Gopinath.

4. It is further stated in the plaint that when the plaintiff was serving as Manager of the bank at Masakkalipatti branch, the defendants elder brother Meignanamurthi was the president of the said Bank and her father used to come to the bank in connection with the loans borrowed by him and thus the family of the defendant was very much associated with the bank. It is further stated that the plaintiff used to attend the family functions of the defendant and the defendant used to visit the bank and during the said period, the defendant developed intimacy with him without any customary or legal marriage and though the intimacy was there for some time, both of them never resided under one roof. The plaintiff has further stated that the defendant was living separately with her family away from the plaintiffs family and after the departure of the plaintiff from Masakkalipatti on transfer to Chinnaseeragapadi, there was no occasion for any meeting between them and the intimacy between them came to an end and the plaintiff came to understand that the defendant was doing kandhu business with the association of one Pandian and by August 2003, the defendant was subjected to cruelty and beaten up by the said Pandian, but the defendant foisted a false case to the Superintendent of Police against the plaintiff. It is further stated by the plaintiff that during the course of enquiry, the defendant admitted that the intimacy was about 24 years back without any valid marriage and tying of thali etc. and the complaint was given only to get back two gold chains from him and she executed a document, (TAMIL) (Viduthalai Vilagal Pathiram) in favour of the plaintiff on 29.8.2003. It is further stated by the plaintiff that in pursuance of the abovesaid document, she received 8 sovereigns of gold chains, a pass book and Rs.1,800/- from the plaintiff and undertook that she will not interfere in the family affairs of the plaintiff and not go to any court or police station.

5. The plaintiff has further stated that on 1.11.2004, the plaintiff was informed by the Kondalampatti Police as if some petition was given by the defendant against him and for the above said enquiry, when he was nearing the police station, the defendant and her men made him to put his signatures in blank stamp papers and blank papers and then he sent a notice to the defendant, making copies to the Superintendent of Police, Salem and Inspector of Police, Kondalampatti for taking action against her and the defendant being a lady pretended before the police authorities as if she is his wife and neglected by him and hence he filed the suit for declaration declaring that she is not his wife and for permanent injunction against her in any way interfering with his family affairs.

6. Per contra, the defendant filed written statement denying several allegations in the