S.29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act saves the right to obtain dissolution of a Hindu marriage under a special enactment, including the forum and procedure, and confers jurisdiction for the proceedings.

1. This case has come up before us because the division bench that heard it in the first instance thought that the decision of a full bench of this Court in Vasappan v. Sarada 1957 KLT. 977 (FB.) and that of a division bench in Raghavan Indira v. Kesavan Gopinathan 1968 KLT. 528 required reconsideration in the light of the decision of a single judge in Vijayammma v. Gangadharan 1967 KLT. 115. But, with great respect, I have no doubt whatsoever that Vasappan v. Sarada 1957 KLT. 977 and Raghavan Indira v. Kesavan Gopinathan 1968 KLT. 528 which held that legal proceedings for the dissolution of a Hindu marriage under a special enactment could be taken in the forum named in that enactment, notwithstanding the passing of the Hindu Marriage Act, were rightly decided, and with equally great respect I think that Vijayamma v. Gangadharan 1967 KLT. 115 which held that in view of S.19 read with S.4 of the Hindu Marriage Act such proceedings could be taken only in the District Court, the saving in sub-section (2) of S.29 applying only to the substantive right to a dissolution, was wrongly decided. Indeed Raghavan Indira v. Kesavan Gopinathan 1968 KLT. 528 expressly states so.

2. What sub-section (2) of S.29 of the Hindu Marriage Act expressly saves from the provisions of that Act, including the overriding provision in S.4, is "any right recognized by custom or conferred by any special enactment to obtain the dissolution of a Hindu marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act". It is important to note that what is saved is the right to obtain the dissolution the emphasis is mine -not the right of dissolution or the grounds for dissolution, and, having regard to the plain language of the statute, as to its purpose, the right saved includes everything necessary, call it substantive, remedial or procedural, to obtain the dissolution. The right prosecuted in this particular case is the right in the Travancore Nayar Act, S.4 and 5, by which a marriage may be dissolved by a formal order of dissolution obtained on a petition presented by either spouse in the court of the Munsiff having jurisdiction the dissolution can be on one or the other of the grounds specified in S.5. It seems to me abundantly clear that this right to obtain a dissolution on a petition presented in the court of the Munsiff having jurisdiction, on the grounds specified in S.5, remains unaffected by any of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act by reason of the saving in sub-section (2) of S.29 of that Act, and that the principal contention of the appellant husband in this appeal brought under S.7 of the Travancore Nayar Act against an order of dissolution made by a Munsiff, namely, that the Munsiff had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding, must fail. In this view, I think it unnecessary to embark on a consideration of the question whether the specification of a particular forum confers a substantive or a procedural or a remedial right. As I have already observed, all manner of rights, call them substantive, procedural, remedial, or what you will, the word "right" is wide enough to take in all of them are comprehended by the saving so long as they relate to the obtaining of the dissolution.

3. As I have already indicated, to place the other construction on the saving in sub-section (2) of S.29 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a construction which in my view is an unwarranted restriction on the plain language of that provision, a restriction to the effect that the word, "right" is there used only in the sense of the substantive right to a dissolution, would be to defeat the very purpose of the sub-section. The sub-section is only a saving of certain provisions of certain enactments other than the Hindu Marriage Act, and by no stretch of imagination can it be said that its effect is to incorporate the saved provisions in the Hindu Marriage Act. That being so, if the word, "right" in the sub-section is to be read as meaning substantive ri