18.This Court, on going through the above judgment found that the facts involved in that judgment is totally different from the facts involved in the case on hand. In the above referred judgment, one Ms.Drowpathi has claimed that she lived with Mr.Subbarayalu Naidu for considerable period of time as his 'Abimana Manaivi' (mgpkhd kditp) and therefore, the children born to her through Mr.Subbarayalu Naidu got right over the properties of Mr.Subbarayalu Naidu. On appreciation of evidence let in, the Court has found that Ms.Drowpathi was living with Mr.Subbarayalu Naidu for 7 years and begotten two children. Thereafter, she has executed a release deed, got some property from Mr.Subbarayulu Naidu and settled with some other person and through that person, she has begotten two more children. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court has rightly held that there is no evidence to show that the said Ms.Drowpathi married Mr.Subbarayalu Naidu. Unless there is proof of marriage and that marriage held to be void, due to Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, question of claiming benefit under Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act will not arise. Based on the above facts of that case, the Court has rightly rejected the claim of Ms.Drowpathi. Whereas, in the present case, the continuous cohabitation is accepted, paternity is accepted and Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act which bars second marriage was not in existence at that point of time. Therefore, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, evil of polygamy was put to an end by the mandate of parliament only on enactment of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Till then, polygamy was permissible and also prevalent. At the point of time, when the second marriage was not void, neither the legitimacy of the children born through the second wife is questionable nor their right over the property through their father is tainted.
