1954 (8) TMI 35 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding the effect of the Repealing and Amending Act of 1952 on a provision in Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In this judgment, the primary issue revolves around the interpretation of the effect of the Repealing and Amending Act of 1952 on a specific provision in Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provision in question, inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1949, pertains to the consideration of a husband's second marriage as a just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him. The case involved a Magistrate's order under Section 488 directing the husband to pay maintenance to his wife based on the husband's second marriage. The husband's counsel argued that the Act of 1949 was repealed by the Act of 1952, leading to the removal of the provision from the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the court disagreed with this interpretation.

The judgment delves into the purpose and function of Repealing and Amending Acts, emphasizing that these acts are enacted to remove obsolete or unnecessary provisions from the statute book. The court highlights that such acts serve to "excise dead matter, prune off superfluities, and reject clearly inconsistent enactments." The Repealing and Amending Act of 1952 repealed the Act of 1949 but included a saving clause in Section 4 to ensure that enactments incorporating the repealed provision remain unaffected. The court clarifies that while the Act of 1949 was repealed, the substantive portion incorporated into Section 488 remains valid and enforceable.

The judgment rebuts the contention that the provision in Section 488, based on the Act of 1949, automatically ceased to exist upon the repeal of the Act. The court emphasizes that the Act of 1952 aimed to eliminate obsolete matter and did not nullify the provisions incorporated into the Criminal Procedure Code. The court dismisses the recommendation of the Additional Sessions Judge, stating that the provision regarding the husband's second marriage as a just ground for the wife's refusal to live with him remains valid despite the repeal of the Act of 1949. Consequently, the court rejects the petition challenging the Magistrate's order for maintenance and upholds the validity of the provision in Section 488.