MOHINDAR SINGH Vs. HARBHAJAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises the question whether the portion of proviso (1) to Subsection (3) of Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Pro-bedure which was inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1949, has been_ repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act of' 1952. This portion is in the following terms:

(2.) The facts of the case are simple and not In. dispute. On 24-7-1953 a Magistrate of the first class of the Jullundur District made an order under Section 488, Criminal P. C. directing the husband to pay a certain sum of money every month for the maintenance of his wife. This order was baaed principally on the ground that the husband had contracted a marriage with another wife. The learned Additional Sessions Judge recommends that this order be set aside as it appears to have been passed by the Magistrate in ignorance of the "fact that the Act of 1949 was repealed by the Act of 1952 and the fact that the provision of law on which the order was based had ceased to exist.

(3.) Mr. Amolak Ram Kapur who appears for the husband contends that when the Act of 1949 was repealed by the Act of 1952 the earlier Act was taken out completely from the statute book of the country and as the new provision was inserted inSection 488 by virtue of the Act of 1949 this provision too was automatically removed from the Criminal P. C. If the new provision has ceased to exist it is obvious that the fact that the husband has contracted a second marriage may or may not be considered to be a just ground for' the wife's refusal to stay with him.