The judgment established the importance of long cohabitation in drawing the presumption of a valid marriage and highlighted the burden of proof in establishing the absence of marriage. It also emphasized the liberal approach in ensuring financial support for dependent women.

1. The plaintiff, who filed a suit for declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of one deceased Swamidoss and for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to pay the family pension amount and other benefits to her has filed the above Second Appeal.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Second Appeal are as follows:-

The plaintiff one Muthulakshmi claims that her husband Swamidoss was working as Havildhar from 1/4/1967 in Madras Regiment at Wellington, Nilgiris. He retired from service on 16/1/1970. From the date of retirement, he had been receiving the pension from the first defendant. The said Swamidoss was earlier married to one Thangapackiam and divorced her on 3/4/1976 under the customary divorce.

3. It is also stated by the plaintiff that the said Thangapackiam had executed a deed of dissolution of marriage. After the said dissolution, on 7/5/1976, the plaintiff married Swamidoss according to Hindu Rites and Customs. Out of the wedlock, they also begot a female child by name Thangakani Adhisaya Kumari. The divorced wife Thangapackiam also died on 20/4/1997. The deceased Swamidoss, the plaintiff and her daughter were living together till the date of death of Swamidoss. The first defendant also had sent a sum of Rs.3,000/- for funeral expenses of Swamidoss to the plaintiff. After the death of Swamidoss, the first defendant stopped sending the family pension amount. Therefore, the plaintiff sent a request on 4/5/2005 for which there was a reply on 24/5/2005 by the first defendant stating that the marriage between the plaintiff with Swamidoss was not legal and that Swamidoss had not divorced his wife Thangapackiam in a Court of Law.

4. The plaintiff also placed reliance on the ration card from 1998 – 2003 and the Voters Identity Card wherein, the said Swamidoss is mentioned as the husband of the plaintiff. The birth certificate of the daughter of the plaintiff also shows only Swamidoss's name as father. As the first defendant was not responsive for the representations and did not release the family pension in favour of the plaintiff, the suit was filed by the plaintiff.

5. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, it is contended that the deceased Swamidoss was a Havildhar in the erstwhile Mysore force on 8/5/1948 and transferred to the Madras Regiment with effect from 16/4/1953. He was discharged from service with effect from 17/1/1970 after rendering 21 years and 8 months service in Army Rule 13 (3) III (i). He was also granted service pension for life Vide PPO No.S/4863/70.

6. As per the service documents, the deceased had married one Thangam on 3/6/1955 as per Hindu Rites. She died on 14/7/1956. After that the deceased converted himself into Christianity and married Thangapackiam Ammal on 11/12/1959. At the time of retirement also, he had nominated only Thangapackiam to receive arrears of pension in the event of his death. He had also applied for endorsement of family pension in favour of the plaintiff duly counter signed by his Pension Disbursing Authority (PDA) viz., Syndicate Bank, Tuticorin. Since her name was not recorded in the service documents, he was advised to forward divorce document in respect of his second wife Thangapackiam Ammal. However, the pensioner did not take any action during his life time till his death.

7. The plaintiff had intimated the defendants on 5/5/2003 about the death of Swamidoss and requested for grant of family pension in her favour. As only the name of Thangapackiam Ammal was recorded in the office of the first defendant, the first defendant informed the plaintiff about her ineligibility to family pension on 26/9/2003. However, the funeral expenses was paid to her by the first defendant. The plaintiff had served a legal notice on 17/10/2005 contending that Thangapackiam Ammal was divorced customarily and a deed was also executed dissolving the marriage. It was contended by the defendant that when the marriage of Thangapackiam