- (1.) This appeal is sequal to an application filed by the respondent (husband) before the Munsif under Section 7 of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act (the Act) for dissolution of marriage. The application was dismissed. The Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Munsif and allowed the application. A learned single Judge of the High Court in second appeal, reversed the findings of the Lower Appellate Court and upheld that of the Munsif. The Division Bench of the High Court, however, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and agreed with the Lower Appellate Court. The net result is that as a result of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court the application filed by the respondent (husband) has been allowed and the marriage between the parties has been dissolved. This appeal, by way of special leave, is against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the marriage having been performed by way of Sapthapadi ceremony around the 'homa' the provisions of the Act were not applicable and as such the application before the Munsif was not competent. The Division Bench of the High Court relying upon the testimony of PW.1 found as under: "We think the requirement of the law would be satisfied by a statement of the type made by PW.1 that the marriage was performed in accordance with the Marumakkathayam custom; especially when, as in this case, the said statement has not been effectively challenged. The customary rites of a Marumakkathayam marriage are simple and well known. That being so, we are satisfied that in the instant case, the petitioner-husband has proved a marriage in accordance with the requirements of Section 4 of Madras Marumakkathayam Act and was therefore entitled to have dissolution ordered by the Court under Section 7 of the Act. The direction to that effect granted by the appellate Court was correct and the learned Judge was wrong in reversing the said judgment."
(3.) We have been taken through the statement of PW.1. It is no doubt correct that in the cross-examination the witness has stated that the marriage was conducted by Sapthapadi around 'homa' and before the sacred fire. The witness has, however, in his examination-in-chief stated as under: "We belong to the Thiyya Community. We follow Marumakkathayam. The marriage was conducted as per the custom of the Marumakkathayam." The Division Bench of the High Court on appreciating the totality of evidence came to the conclusion which we have quoted above. We see no ground to differ with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High Court.;