PALANIAMMAL Vs. CHINNAPILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioners/Appellants/Respondents have projected this Civil Revision Petition as against the Judgment dated 24.7.2003 in C.M.A. No. 41 of 1998 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Salem.

(2.) The Learned Appellate Authority viz., Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Salem, in the Judgment dated 24.7.2003 in C.M.A. No. 41 of 1998, had inter alia opined that the Respondents/Petitioners had failed to prove the alleged customary divorce said to have been held between the First Respondent/First Petitioner and the deceased Manickam and resultantly, dismissed the Appeal with costs.

(3.) According to the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/Appellants/Respondents, the Courts below failed to see that the First Respondent/First Petitioner had clearly admitted that she had deserted the deceased Manickam and subsequently, her husband married the First Revision Petitioner/First Respondent and both of them continued to live together for so many years and admittedly, the First Respondent/First Petitioner was not living with the deceased Manickam for nearly more than 25 years and even when there was no valid divorce between the First Respondent/First Petitioner and her husband, it should be presumed that the marriage between them was a dead one and hence, the S.O.P. No. 11 of 1995 ought to have been dismissed.