ACHA RANGANAIKAMMALL Vs. ACHA RAMANUJA AIYANGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Presidency Small Cause Court in a suit instituted by the mother of a minor Hindu girl against the undivided coparceners of her father to recover the expenses of the girl s marriage defrayed by the mother.

(2.) The question referred to this Court is : "Is the widow of a deceased member of an undivided Hindu family entitled to per form the marriage of a daughter of the deceased, when the father of the deceased and the other male members of the family have not wrongly or improperly refused to perform such marriage, and to recover the reasonable expenses of such marriage out of the joint family property?" The letter of reference sets out the facts as follows: The plaintiff is the widow of one Sudarsana Aiyangar deceased, who was the son of the first defendant and brother of the other defendants and undivided from them. Plaintiff had a daughter Lakshmi by the deceased, aged 10, who was asked in marriage for one Sundar Ramanuja Aiyangar. The marriage was agreed upon by all the parties and the Nischithartham or betrothal ceremony was performed by the 1st defendant at his own expense and a day was fixed for the marriage. Before the marriage day arrived the father of the bridegroom wrote to the 1st defendant demanding that certain properties should be given by him to the Doy. The 1st defendant did not wish to comply with this demand and proposed to give the girl to another bridegroom to whom plaintiff objected on the ground that he was a widower of 34 years of age. Thereupon the plaintiff herself entered into negotiations with the family of Sundara Ramauuja Aiyangar, the bridegroom first proposed, and carried out the marriage of her daughter with him without calling upon the defendants to perform it, and without proper notice to them of her intention. The plaintiff seeks in this suit to recover the expenses incurred by her in performing this marriage. The learned judge found that the defendants did not improperly or wrongfully refuse to perform the marriage of the plaintiff s daughter and held that the plaintiff was not therefore entitled to perform the marriage herself and to demand the costs of so doing from the defendants; and he accordingly dismissed the suit with costs.

(3.) The learned 1st and 2nd Judges of the Small Cause Court were of opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the expenses from the defendants; while the 3rd Judge is of a contrary opinion; the ground on which the former opinion is based is that the 1st defendant, the father of the deceased had a preferable right to select a bridegroom for the girl and dispose of her in marriage and as he did not wrongly or improperly refuse to perform the marriage the widow acted wrongly in performing it herself.