ETHIRAJAMMAL Vs. S.A. VENKATACHARIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chingleput in O.P. No. 65 of 1953 filed under the Hindu Bigamy Prevention and Divorce Act, Act VI of 1949.

(2.) THE original petition was filed by the husband before the learned subordinate Judge under Section 5 of the said Hindu Bigamy Prevention and Divorce Act for a dissolution of the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent in the said petition. The respondent before the learned Subordinate Judge took the objection that the Sub -Court had no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the original petition. The respondent relied upon Section 5(1) of the said Act which is to the following effect:

(3.) A further point that was urged on behalf of the learned Counsel for the respondent was that in so far as there is no saving clause in the State Act, it should be taken that the Civil Procedure Code alone would apply and not what is contained in Section 5(1) of the Hindu Bigamy Prevention and Divorce Act. I do not think that simply because there has been no specific provision to save as has been set out in the Central Act, the jurisdiction already provided for under Section 5(1) gets in any way affected. Section 5 of the State Act seems to be self contained and it has made a specific as well as a general provision. When there is specific provision, the general provision cannot really override the specific provision. If there is no saving clause affecting the specific provision, it should be understood that the Legislature intended that so far as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned what has been provided under Section 5(1) applied and what has been provided in Section 5(4) merely relates to the procedure for the hearing and the disposal of the petition as if it was a suit. It does not affect the main question of jurisdiction. Therefore in this view, the order of the learned Subordinate Judge has to be set aside and it is hereby set aside. The learned Subordinate Judge is directed to return the petition to be presented to the proper Court. So far as this revision is concerned, the petitioner will be entitled to her costs.