Arnold White, C.J.

1. The first question which has been referred to us is whether the Married Womens Property Act, 1874 (Act III of 1874) applies to Hindu males.

2. I feel a difficulty in answering this question in the form in which it has been framed. A general answer might possibly cover a case not contemplated in the order of reference, and not argued before us. The argument before us was confined to the question whether, where a Hindu male effected a policy of insurance on his own. life, which expressed on the face of it that it was for the benefit of his wife, or his wife and children, or any of them, Section 6 of the Act applied. This is the question I propose to deal with.

3. Under Section 2 of the Act nothing in the Act applies to a married woman, who at the time of her marriage professed the Hindu religion or whose husband at the time of the marriage professed the Hindu religion.

4. I am of opinion that Sections 4, 5, 7 and 8 do not apply where either of the spouses professed the Hindu religion at the time of the marriage. These sections contain the words " married women" and therefore Section 2 applies to them in terms. They are intended to confer rights on a married woman which under the law of England, she did not possess, and to remove disabilities imposed on her by the law of England. These enactments, if not. in conflict with, are entirely foreign to, Hindu law. The words," married women do not occur in Section 9, but the subject matter of the Section is foreign to Hindu law, and in my opinion this section also does not apply where either of the spouses was, at the time of the marriage, a Hindu.

5. Then as to Section 6. the words " married women" do not occur in the Section The section no doubt is in the interest of the wife and children bat its primary object is to enable a man to make provision for his wife and children by insuring his life for their benefit, without executing a separate deed of trust. The section enables a Hindu male to do something which but for the section, he would not be able to do. The result may be that a Hindu woman derives a benefit, but I do not feel bound to hold that she is shut out from this benefit by reason of the general enactment that the Act shall not apply to Hindu women. As Sankaran Nair, J points out in the order of reference, Section 10 of the English Act of 1874 was split into two sections in the Indian Act, Sections 5 and 6, which is consistent with an intention to, make Section 6 applicable and Section 5 inapplicable to Hindus.

6. Section 2 only excludes the operation of the Act as regards the married women. There is no exclusion as regards children. If a Hindu male can take the benefit of the section for the purpose of providing for his children but is precluded from taking the benefit of the section in order to make provision for his wife, a curious anomaly arises, and a state of things is brought about which can scarcely have been intended by the legislature.

7. This suggested anomaly was met by the contention that a similar anomaly arose under the language of Section 6 itself, since the words " or any of them" only apply to children, and that a policy for the benefit of one or more children to the exclusion of the wife, did not come within the terms of the Section The words of the Indian Act are the same as those of S. JO of the English Act of 1874 (except that the English Act says " be deemed to be a trust for the benefit of his wife and of his children or any of them" whilst the Indian Act says " be deemed to be a trust for the benefit of his wife, or of his wife and children, or any of them").

8. These words may be ambiguous, but in Section 11 of the English Act of 1882 we have the words " for the benefit of his wife or of his children, or of his wife and children, or any of them." This makes the matter quite clear, and in my opinion this is the sense in which we should construe the words in Section 6 of the Indian Act of 1874. This seems to dispose of the argum