GOVINDAN Vs. CHOLAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal coming on for hearing on Monday the 23rd day of March 1987 and on this day upon perusing the petition of Appeal, the order of the Lower Court, and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S. Rajagopalan, Advocate for the Appellants and of Mr. Ravi Kumar for M/s. King and Partridge, Advocates for the 1st respondent, and of Mr. V. Ragupathi, Advocate for the 2nd respondent, the Court made the following order:

(2.) THE main point that is argued in this appeal is that the deceased would have lived upto sixty years of age and given half the income for the maintenance of his family members and this has been abruptly cut short so far as the maintenance amounts for the other members of the family maintained by the deceased is concerned, as a result of the occurrence in this case, viz. the death of the deceased due to the accident. This Court has comprehensively gone into the evidence regarding the occurrence and it is needless to say that there is no other material which would warrant a conclusion different from the one arrived at by the Tribunal with respect of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver in driving the vehicle which had involved in an impact with the deceased and caused his more or less instantaneous death, in that the deceased died within four hours after the accident It is only with respect to the quantum of the compensation, this appeal has been preferred by the claimants. The second respondent in this appeal is one Anjammal, who had married the deceased subsequent to the death of the first wife of the deceased. This aspect is not disputed. But, learned Counsel for the appellants would urge that Anjatnmal is not entitled to any share in the compensation since her first husband Veluswami, is still alive and when there is no proof of divorce as between her and Veluswami or even a customary divorce, it cannot be held that she is dependent on the deceased merely because she began to live with the deceased as his wife. It is well known that in Tamil Nadu there are two kinds of customary marriage prevailing among non-dwijas, which go by the name (in vernacular) and (in vernacular). These two customary marriages are prevailing among certain communities of Tamil Nadu, which cannot be disputed. Therefore, if the relationship between a husband and wife becomes so strained that there is no possibility of their living together as man and wife, then, as per the custom prevailing among such communities, the wife is entitled to declare a divorce by placing a (in vernacular) (straw) between her and the husband and declaring a cessation of the marital relationship between them. This is known as (in vernacular), and this has the effect of a divorce and thereafter each spouse is entitled to re-marry and is not held liable for an offence of bigamy as the divorce effected by the abovesaid custom is held valid. The other mode prevailing in certain communities is known as (in vernacular). By this custom, if for some reason or other, after a marriage, either customary or performed with rituals attended with chanting of mantras before the sacred fire, the spouses find it difficult to live together in harmony, those marriages also can be put an end to by the custom known as (in vernacular) by which, the husband takes away the tali from the wife permitting her to re-marry and makes himself qualified for contracting a second marriage These customs are age-long customs prevailing among certain communities of Tamil Nadu from time immemorial.