KRISHNAN Vs. AMMALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At one time polyandry was as much prevalent as polygamy in the community to which the parties to the suit belong, namely Thiyyas of South Malabar. They were no doubt, Hindus, governed by their own system regarding the marriage institution. The interesting question that has arisen in the suit concerns the widowhood of a woman who loses one of her three husbands by death. Naturally she continues as the wife of the other two. Can she be said to be the widow of the deceased husband so long as she continues to have the status of wife of the two surviving husbands On remarriage of a widow she ceases to be one such any more. But where there is no remarriage but all the same she is a married woman by reason of the fact that she has two husbands alive could it be said that she cannot be a widow and a married woman at the same time This question has arisen in the suit in the following way.

(2.) Plaintiff was married by three brothers, one Karuppan and defendants 1 and 2. She had three children born out of the union, who are defendants 3 to 5 in the suit. Succession is claimed by the plaintiff in the joint family assets of Karuppan which she claims to be entitled to under the Hindu Women's Right to Property, Act, 1937. Though there is a plea that defendants 1 and 2 were not conducting themselves as husbands of the plaintiff after some years of the marriage, that of course is not very seriously persued and therefore it can be taken for the purpose of the appeal that she continues to be the wife of defendants 1 and 2. Her claim as the widow to succeed to the joint family interests of Karuppan is opposed by defendants 1 and 2, who contend that she is not a widow within the meaning of Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, as in spite of the death of Karuppan, she continues to be the wife of defendants 1 and 2.

(3.) S.3 of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act 18/1937 as amended by Act 11/1938 is relevant for the purpose of this appeal and I will extract the Section here.