AMMIREDDI RAMAMOORTY DIED Vs. AMMIREDDI SITHARAMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two questions that are referred to the Full Bench are (i) whether the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are retrospective and (ii) whether a married woman, who left her husband and lived with another as his permanently kept mistress could be regarded as an Avaruddha Stree.

(2.) The facts material for this enquiry may be set out shortly. The respondents originally raised an action In the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Masulipatam, for a declaration of their right to and possession of the several properties set out in the plaint schedule. The 1st respondent is the mother and next friend of respondents 2 to 4, who are minors. The properties were claimed as belonging to one Amireddi Llngayya, who died in February, 1948, with the averments that the 1st respondent is a Brahmin by birth, that in or about 1938 she was married to the said Lingayya, a Sudra, who had lost his first wife and that respondents 3 to 4 as the sons of Lingayya by her born in lawful wedlock. Art alternative case was also put forward, namely, that if for any reason it was held that the 1st respondent was not the legally wedded wife of Lingayya, she was at least his permanently kept concubine and exclusively in his keeping during his life time and as such she and her children by Lingayya were entitled to the properties left by him.

(3.) The suit was opposed by trip brothers of Lingayya and their sons on the defence that the 1st respondent was never married to Lingayya, that she was married to Chivakula Siyaramakrishnayya, that she left her husband and was living a life of promiscuous immorality, that she had nothing to do with Lingayya and that respondents 2 to 4 were not born to him. They also pleaded that Lingayya died undivided from his brothers.