A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.
1. The petitioner who is the husband asks me to direct the Magistrate to stay the proceedings before him instituted by his wife for the payment of maintenance to her under Section 488 of the Code of Criminals Procedure. The reason why the petitioner asks for that order is that he made an application on May 29, 1961, after the wife made her application to the Criminal Court, for a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and also for a decree for judicial separation under Section 10. The Court below came to the conclusion that it was not proper to stay the proceedings in the Criminal Court for the mere reason that the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act were pending in the Civil Court
2. Mr. Savanur appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the view taken by the Courts below overlooks the provisions of Section 4 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which reads:
4. Over-riding effect of Act-- Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,-- (a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act.
(b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act.
3. According to the argument advanced by Mr. Savanur, since Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act entitled the wife to apply for payment of interim maintenance to her during the pendency of the proceedings institute by the husband for a decree of divorce and for a decree for judicial separation, Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which authorises an order similar to the one which may be made under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, became inoperative, and that therefore, since the wife in the civil proceedings started by her husband did make an application for interim maintenance on September 3, 1981, and the application was pending before the Civil Court, the Magistrate had lost jurisdiction to proceed with the application made by the wife.
4. I am unable to understand how Section 4 of the Hindu Marriage Act can deprive the Magistrate of his jurisdiction to make an order on the application made by the wife. All that that section provides is that, if a law in force before the Hindu Marriage Act was enacted, was inconsistent with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, that previous law shall cease to have effect. There, is nothing in Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, which does not relieve a Hindu husband from the legal obligation to maintain his wife or children.
5. In that view of the matter, it becomes clear that the Magistrate's jurisdiction to hear the application presented by the wife was unaffected by the proceedings commenced by the husband under the Hindu Marriage Act.
6. Mr. Savanur next contended that in the circumstances, it would have been convenient for the Magistrate to stay the proceedings in his Court pending disposal of the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. On that question, the Magistrate came to a contrary conclusion. I entirely agree with that view taken by the Magistrate, The wife's application was presented nine months before the husband started proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Set. The application presented by the wife being the earlier application, the Magistrate was, in my opinion, right in thinking that this was not a case in which the proceedings before him should be discontinued until the conclusion of the proceedings before the Civil Court.
7. I dismiss this revision petition.