This revision petition raises a question of some importance, namely, whether a compulsory deposit in a railway provident fund standing to the credit of a depositor and payable to his wife Under a nomination duly made by the depositor, is free from liability to be attached by a creditor in execution of a decree obtained by him against the wife for a debt incurred by her before the death of the depositor. The facts are not in dispute. On 18th September, 1943, one Kondiah Naidu, an employee of the South Indian Railway, and his wife, the present petitioner, executed a promissory note in favour of the respondent for Rs. 1,700. Kondiah Naidu died on 20th November, 1944. On 23rd June, 1944, he had duly nominated his wife, the petitioner, as the person to whom the Provident Fund amount should be paid on his death. The respondent filed a suit O.S. No. 35 of 1945, in the Court of the District Munsiff, Erode, against the petitioner, on the promissory note, obtained a decree and proceeded to attach the Provident Fund amount in the hands of the Railway. An objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner that the amount was not liable to be attached under the provisions of section 3(2) of the Provident Funds Act. The learned District Munsiff of Erode upheld the objection: but, on appeal, the learned District Judge of Coimbatore overruled it and issued an order of attachment. The judgment-debtor applies to this Court to revise the said order of the District Judge.

No decided case has been cited before me, which directly governs the facts of this case. The decision must therefore depend upon the construction of the relevant provisions of the statute with such help as may be derived from observations in decisions under the Act, though not directly in point.

Section 3 (2) of the Provident Funds Act is as follows:

“Any sum standing to the credit of any subscriber to, or depositor in, any such Fund at the time of his decease and payable under the rules of the Fund to any dependant of the subscriber or depositor, or to such person as may be authorised by law to receive payment on his behalf, shall, subject to any deduction authorised by this Act, and, save where the dependant is the widow or child of the subscriber or depositor, subject also to the rights of an assignee under an assignment made before the commencement of this Act, vest in the dependant, and shall, subject as aforesaid, be free from any debt or other liability incurred by the deceased or incurred by the dependant before the death of the subscriber or depositor.”

Section 4 contains provisions regarding repayment of the sum standing to the credit of the subscriber or depositor. It is not necessary to extract the entire section. It provides that the sum shall be paid to the dependant if the sum vests in the dependant under the provisions of section 3, or, if the sum does not exceed Rs. 5,000 and if it is not payable to a dependant, then, it shall be paid to any person nominated to receive it, or, if any person is not nominated, to any person appearing to be otherwise entitled to receive it; and in case any sum or balance not payable to either a dependant or a nominee, as already mentioned, such sum shall be paid to a person nominated to receive it on the production of a probate or such other document, entitling him to receive payment, or, in the absence of a person nominated, to any person who produces such a document.

Section 5(1) before it was amended by Act XI of 1946, was as follows:

“Subject to the provisions of this Act, but otherwise notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any disposition, whether testamentary or otherwise, by a subscriber to, or depositor in, a Government or Railway Provident Fund, of the sum standing to his credit in the Fund, or of any part thereof, any nomination, duly made in accordance with the rules of the Fund, which purports to confer upon any person the right to receive the whole or any part of such sum on th