SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1962 Supreme(AP) 190

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU
Syed Shamsuddin - Appellant
Versus
Munira Begum - Respondent
Decided On : 10-26-62

The repeal of a repealing Act does not revive the original Act unless there is an express statement of purpose to revive it.

Headnote:

REPEAL OF REPEALING ACT - EFFECT - SECTION 5 OF THE SHARIAT ACT, 1937 - REPEALED BY SECTION 6 OF THE DISSOLUTION OF MUSLIM MARRIAGES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 6 REPEALED BY THE REPEALING AND AMENDING ACT, XXV OF 1942 - SECTION 5 NOT REVIVED - JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO ENTERTAIN SUIT FOR DISSOLUTION OF MUSLIM MARRIAGE - NOT AFFECTED.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the jurisdiction of the lower court to entertain a suit for dissolution of Muslim marriage filed by the respondent. The petitioner contended that the repeal of Section 6 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, by the Repealing and Amending Act, XXV of 1942, revived Section 5 of the Shariat Act, 1937, which vested jurisdiction in the District Courts with regard to the dissolution of Muslim marriages.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the repeal of Section 6 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, by the Repealing and Amending Act, XXV of 1942, did not revive Section 5 of the Shariat Act, 1937, as there was no specific provision in the Repealing and Amending Act reviving the original provision. The court also held that Section 7 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which requires an express statement of purpose to revive a repealed enactment, applied to the Shariat Act, 1937, and further supported the conclusion that Section 5 of the Shariat Act, 1937, was not revived.

Issues: Whether the repeal of Section 6 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, by the Repealing and Amending Act, XXV of 1942, revived Section 5 of the Shariat Act, 1937.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following legal principles in reaching its decision: * The common law rule that the repeal of a repealing Act revives the original Act ab initio does not apply to repealing Acts passed since 1850. * Where an Act repealing an whole or in part, a former Act, is itself repealed, the last repeal does not now revive the Act or provisions before repealed, unless words be added reviving them. * Section 4 of the Repealing and Amending Act, XXV of 1942, provides that the repeal of the repealing Act shall not restore the old provision. * Section 7 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, requires an express statement of purpose to revive a repealed enactment.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and held that the lower court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for dissolution of Muslim marriage.

RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition raises the question of the effect of the repeal by a repealing enactment. The question has arisen in the following circumstances.

( 2 ) THE respondent herein instituted a suit in the Court of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner on the ground of ill-treatment. While denying the averments made by the respondent, the petitioner pleaded that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The question of jurisdiction was taken up as a preliminary issue. The learned trial Judge negatived the peptitioners contention and directed the parties to proceed with the trial of the other issues raised in the suit. Against the finding on the preliminary issue, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

( 3 ) FOR a better appreciation of the question arising for determination, it is necessary to give the history of the material legislative provision. Under Section 5 of the Shariat Act, 1937, it was provided that "the District Judge may, on petition made by a Muslim Married woman, dissolve a marriage on any ground recognised by Muslim Personal Law. " That Section was repealed by Section 6 of Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. Section 6 reads as follows: "section 5 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 is hereby repealed. " By the Repealing and Amending Act, XXV of 1942 the enactments specified in the First Schedule thereto were repealed to the extent mentioned in column 4 thereof. Under Column 4, is mentioned S. No. 6 of Act VIII of 1939.

( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, by virtue of the last mentioned provisions under which Section 6 of Act VIII of 1939 was repealed, the original Section 5 of the Shariat Act is revived and that consequently only the District Judge is empowered to entertain a suit of the present nature.

( 5 ) THE question which arises for determination is whether the Section 5 in the Shariat Act is, by reason of the repeal of Section 6 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (Act VIII of 1939), revived and again became operative.

( 6 ) IT is argued that when the legislature repeals a Repealing Act, the law as it existed under the Act repealed is restored. The following passage from Maxwells treatise on Interpretation of Statutes at P. 402 is instructive :"where an Act is repealed and the repealing enactment is repealed by another which manifests no intention that the original Act shall continue repealed, the common law rule was that the repeal of the Second Act revived the first ab initio and not merely from the passing of the reviving Act. But this rule does not apply to repealing Acts passed since 1850. Where an Act repealing an whole or in part, a former Act, is itself repealed, the last repeal does not now revive the Act or provisions before repealed, unless words be added reviving them. "the above passage was quoted with approval by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ameerun-Nissa Begum v. Mahaboob Begum, AIR 1955 Supreme Court 352 at page 362 wherein it was observed as follows:"it may indeed be said that the present rule is the result of the statutory provisions introduced by the Interpretation Act of 18s9 and as we are not bound by the provisions of any English Statute, we can still apply the English Common Law Rule if it appears to us to be reasonable and proper. But even according to the Common Law doctrine, the repeal of the repealing enactment would not revive the original Act if the second repealing enactment manifests an intention to the contrary. "where, therefore, the legislature expresses no intention that the original statute be reinstated, the fact that the repealing provision is itself repealed, would not have the effect of restoring the original provision to the Statute book. Naturally, therefore, the question for inquiry is whether the Repealing and Amending Act. XXV of 1942 contains any provision for the revival of the orig



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top