But numbercontention was raised in the written statement filed by Perumal that he was domiciled in the State of Madras.
This Act shall also apply if either of the parties to the marriage was a Hindu domiciled in the State of Madras.
S. 4 1 Notwithstanding any rule of law, custom or usage to the companytrary, any marriage solemnized after the companymencement of this Act between a man and a woman either of whom has a spouse living at the time of such solemnization shall be void, whether the marriage is solemnized within or outside the State of Madras Provided Mr. Gupte companytended that Perumal was domiciled in the village of Kannamkulam, Taluka Nanguneri, District Tirunelveli in the State of Madras and on that account governed by Madras Act 6 of 1949, and since Perumal had been previously married to Seethalakshmi who was alive, his marriage with Annapazham was invalid.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 25, 1965 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No.
177 of 1961.
The Courts below have held that Perumal had married Seethalakshmi before he married Annapazham, and that Seethalakshmi was alive at the date of Perumals marriage with Annapazham.
133 1 c of the Constitution, this appeal is preferred.
V. Gupte, R. Thiagarajan, Janendra Lal and B. R. Agar wala, for the appellant.
Perumal and Annapazham were married according to the ceremonies which make a valid marriage they had lived as husband and wife and if it was the case of Perumal that the marriage was, by reason of the prohibition companytained in Madras Act 6 of 1949, invalid, it was for him to set up and to establish that plea by evidence.
The marriage with Annapazham took place in Kannimadam which is admittedly within the territory of the State of Travancore Cochin and after the marriage Perumal and Annapazham lived at Kannimadam.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
H. Hingorani and K. Hingorani, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. Perumal Nadar married Annapazham daughter of Kailasa Nadar an Indian Christian on November 29, 1950, at Kannimadam in the State of Travancore Cochin according to Hindu rites.
M. Thangiah Nadar P.W. 2, and Kailasa Nadar W. 4 have deposed that the families of Annapazham and Perumal were the subjects of the Travancore Maharaja and that evidence was number challenged.
Perumal appealed to the High Court of Madras, but without success.
354 of 1967.
It is true that an attempt was made after plaintiff closed her case to suggest to witnesses examined that he Perumal was a resident of Kannamkulam and that he occasionally visited Kannimadam where he had a house.
With certificate under Art.
The younger named Ponnuswami acting through his mother Annapazham as his guardian filed an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, for separate possession of a half share in the properties of the joint family held by his father Perumal.
The elder child died shortly after its birth.
Annapazham gave birth to two children the first on September 14, 1951 and the other on March 5, 1958.
