ABDUL GAFOOR KUNJU Vs. PATHUMMA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order of the Court of Session, Trivandrum enhancing maintenance awarded to a divorced muslim wife and her daughter, after the muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (herein-after called 'the Act') came into force is impugned in these proceedings.

(2.) MAINTENANCE was awarded to the wife and daughter earlier. By M. C. 59/87 they sought enhancement and the Chief Judicial magistrate, Trivandrum declined the prayer. Additional Sessions Judge, revised the order of the magistrate and enhanced the amount. The enhancement in favour of the daughter is not challenged, and rightly too.

(3.) THE answer to the question is available in 5 & 7 of the Act. Besides, the well known rule of interpretation is that the special law excludes the general. In Queen v. London County Council ( (1893) 2q. B. 454)Bowen L. J. observed: "now a general act, prima facie, is that which applies to the whole community. . . as opposed to that, you get statutes which may well be public because of the importance of the subjects with which they deal and their general interest to the community, but which are limited in respect of area which makes them local or limited in respect of individuals or persons a limitation which makes them personal". In Kousalia Rani v. Gopal Singh (AIR 1964 S. C. 260)referring to provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Supreme Court stated the law: "a special law therefore means a law enacted for special cases, in special circumstances, in contra-distinction to general rule of law, laid down as applicable generally to all cases with which the general law deals".