Skip to content


Venkadam Narayana Iyer and anr. Vs. Siva Subramania Iyer and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in13Ind.Cas.985; (1912)22MLJ49
AppellantVenkadam Narayana Iyer and anr.
RespondentSiva Subramania Iyer and anr.
Excerpt:
- 1. we are of opinion that, under the circumstances mentioned in the judgment of the subordinate judge, the plaintiff was justified in giving the girl meenakshi in marriage. the grandfather and the paternal uncle had practically abandoned guardianship of the girl, and, as found by the subordinate judge, their assurance that they would celebrate her marriage in proper form was not sincere. it is then urged by mr. c.v. anantakrishna aiyar that, as the marriage was celebrated within two days of the confinement of the 2nd defendant's wife, we must disallow the plaintiff the expenses incurred by him in connection with the marriage. it might be that it was not proper on the part of the plaintiff, according to the hindu ceremonial law, to celebrate the marriage during a period of pollution, as to.....
Judgment:

1. We are of opinion that, under the circumstances mentioned in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, the plaintiff was Justified in giving the girl Meenakshi in marriage. The grandfather and the paternal uncle had practically abandoned guardianship of the girl, and, as found by the Subordinate Judge, their assurance that they would celebrate her marriage in proper form was not sincere. It is then urged by Mr. C.V. Anantakrishna Aiyar that, as the marriage was celebrated within two days of the confinement of the 2nd defendant's wife, we must disallow the plaintiff the expenses incurred by him in connection with the marriage. It might be that it was not proper on the part of the plaintiff, according to the Hindu ceremonial law, to celebrate the marriage during a period of pollution, as to which, however, we express no decided opinion. But it is not contended that the marriage would be invalid on that account, and we do not think we are called upon to punish the plaintiff by making him bear the expenses of the marriage.

2. The Subordinate Judge has, however, given a personal decree against the defendants. It will be modified by directing the decretal amount to be paid out of the family property in the hands of the defendants. Otherwise the decree is coufirmed and the second appeal dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //