JUDGMENT

Fletcher, J. - The only question raised by these five rules is whether a sum of Rs. 2,000, payable by the Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Company, Limited, under or by virtue of a policy of assurance on the life of one Radha Kishore De numbered 24003 is - available for the payment of the debts of Radha Kishore De. Radha Kishore De was a Hindu. He died in the month of January 1913. The opposite parties to these rules are his heirs.

2. Radha Kishore in his life-time effected the policy in question on his own life for the benefit of his wife and children. The policy purports to be issued under the provisions of the Married Women's Property Act, 1874. The question for our determination is, does Section 6 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1874, apply to a policy of assurance effected by a Hindu on his own life for the benefit of his wife and children? In the present case the assured has not purported to create any trust in respect of the money payable under the policy. Unless, therefore, Section 6 of the Act applies, the contract of assurance being with Radha Kishore, the right to call for payment, is vested in his representatives and forms a portion of his estate: Cleaver, v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association (1892) 1 Q.B. 147 : 61 L.J.Q.B. 128 : 66 L.T. 220 : 40 W.R. 230 : 56 J.P. 180. Different views have been taken in the High Courts in India as to whether Section 6 of the Act authorises a married Hindu man to effect a policy of assurance in accordance with the provisions of the section.

3. The High Court at Bombay in the case of Shankar v. Umabai 19 Ind. Cas. 736 : 37 B. 471 : 15 Bom. L.R. 320 take the broad view that the Act of 1874 does not apply to Hindus and, therefore, that a policy effected by a Hindu for the benefit of his wife and children is not governed by the provisions of Section 6.

4. On the other hand the High Court at Madras in the case of Pokkunri Balamba v. Kakaraparti Krishnayya 20 Ind. Cas. 934 : 25 M.L.J. 65 : (1913) M.W.N. 697 : 14 M.L.T. 363 have held that the provisions of Section 6 of the Act apply to a policy effected by a Hindu on his own life for the benefit of his wife and children.

5. Now Section 2 of the Act provides that Nothing herein contained applies to any married woman who at the time of her marriage professed the Hindu, Muham-madan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina religion, or whose husband, at the time of such marriage, professed any of those religions." And Section 6 of the Act is in these terms: A policy of insurance effected by any married man on his own life, and expressed on the face of it to be for the benefit of his wife, or his wife and children, or any of them, shall enure and be deemed to be a trust for the benefit of his wife, or of his wife and children, or any of them, according to the interest so expressed, and shall not, so long as any object of the trust remains, be subject to the control of the husband, or to his Creditors, or form part of his estate." A policy effected under the terms of the section by a married man coming within the terms of the section for the benefit of 'his wife or his wife and children or any of them, if they come within the terms of the section, is a complete settlement as from the date of the policy on the wife and children.

6. Thus although there is no obligation on the husband to pay the premiums becoming due on the policy, the husband could not surrender the policy to the office and receive the surrender value thereof.

7. Now a wife of a Hindu married man seems to me obviously to be a married woman who or whose husband professes the Hindu religion. And in that view, in my opinion, Section 2 of the Act prohibits a Hindu married man from effecting a policy u/s 6 for the benefit of his wife. I am unable to adopt the view that seems to have been expressed by Tyabji, J., that the policy would be a valid settlement on the children in case of a policy effected by a Hindu, although the wife is excluded by the terms of Section 2 of the Act.

8.