The central legal point established in the judgment is that the enforcement of a subsequent legislation does not automatically nullify a judgment, decree, or order of a Court of law, and the Act itself must contain a specific provision superseding such judgment, decree, or order.

This First Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Act No. 66 of 1984) is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th March, 1987 passed by the learned Judge, Family, Court, Luck now refusing to execute the order of maintenance passed in favour of the appellant against the first respondent in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), for short Code, for the period subsequent to May 18,1986 in view of the enforcement of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (Act No. 25 of 1986), for short 1986 Act, with effect from 19th May, 1986.

2. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows:

"the appellant and the first respondent were wife and husband. They are Muslim by religion. There was divorce between the two. The appellant claimed maintenance from the first respondent under Section 125 of the Code which was granted to her by order dated 11th February, 1977. The maintenance allowance was fixed at Rs. 60 per month. The first respondent committed default in payment of the monthly maintenance which led to the % filing of application under Section 125 (3) of the Code by the appellant against the first respondent. Through this application she claimed recovery of maintenance allowance for the period 11th September, 1985 to 10th August, 1986. During the pendency of this application 1986 Act was enforced with effect from 19th May, 1986. In view of the enforcement of the Act the first respondent pleaded that since the appellant had been divorced by him he was not liable to maintain her and to pay her maintenance. The Court below upheld the plea and directed recovery of arrears of main tenance allowance, only for the period 11th September, 1985 to 18th May, 1985. The learned Judge refused to recover the amount falling due from 19th May, 1985. "

3. The submission of the appellants learned counsel is that a judgment, decree or an order of Court of law does not get automatically nullified by enforcement of an Act passed by the Legislature and that the Act itself must contain a specific provision superseding such judgment, decree or order. It is pointed out that 1986 Act has not been given retrospective operation and it does not contain any provision superseding or making ineffective an order of maintenance already passed under Section 125 (1) of the Code.

4. Section 125 (1) of the Code authorises the Court to pass an order of maintenance upon proof of neglect or refusal to maintain by the person liable to maintain the applicant. Sub-section (3) provides for enforcement of the order of maintenance in the event of its non-compliance. Under this provision the Court is authorised to realise the amount due in the same manner as a fine is realised. In view of the first proviso to this sub-section the Court will proceed to recover the amount only when an application is made in that behalf. The second proviso to this sub-section and sub-section (5) prescribe situations

under which the Court may refuse to proceed with recovery of the amount due. The situation contemplated by the second Proviso is unreasonable refusal by the wife to live with the husband despite offer by the latter to maintain the former on condition of her living with him. Under sub-section (5) the Court has to cancel the order of maintenance if it is established before it that the wife in whose favour order of maintenance had been passed is living in adultery or is, without sufficient reason, refusing to live with her husband or that the husband and wife are living separately by mutual consent. Section 127 (1) provides for alteration in the quantum of allowance awarded earlier on proof of a change in the circumstances of either the person paying the allowance or the person receiving the same. Under sub- section (2) the court is authorised to vary or cancel its earlier order of maintenance if that is warranted in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court. Under cl