JUDGMENT Shamsuddin Ahmed, J. This matter is placed before us on a reference to the Division Bench by Sri M.G. Mukherjee, J. by his order dated 28.9.88. 2. This revisional application was filed by the husband petitioner for setting aside an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 9th Court, Alipur in Criminal Motion No. 110/87. The petitioner's case as disclosed in his revisional application is that on October 18, 1981 he married the opposite party Sahani Bibi according to Muslim rites and customs. The marriage was registered on the same date. Then Mohar was fixed at Rs. 999/-. The relationship between the parties became strain and ultimately on September 29, 1982 the wife left her matrimonial home. On November 8, 1982 the petitioner divorced the opposite party wife by a registered talak and communicated the same to her by advocate's letter dated 1.12.82. The opposite party filed an application under s. 125 of the Cr. P.C. on 15th December, 1982. The learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 8th August, 1985 allowed a monthly maintenance @ 250/- in favour of the wife and @ 150/- for her baby with effect from August 1985. On September 29, 1986 the petitioner again pronounced three Talaks in presence of the witnesses and got it again registered. On October 25, 1986 he filed an application under s. 127 of the Cr. PC before the learned Magistrate, 6th Court, Alipur for variation and/or alteration of the earlier order passed under s, 125 of the Cr. PC. The learned Magistrate rejected the application under s. 127 of the Cr. PC. Against the order the petitioner moved the learned Sessions Judge, 24-Parganas in Criminal Motion no. 110/87. The Criminal Motion having been dismissed the petitioner has come up with this revisional application. 3. It appears that if an application under s. 127 of the Cr PC is maintainable in a case in which an order of maintenance has been passed in favour of a Muslim divorced woman after the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 having come into force. The learned Judge noted that there are three decisions on the point by three Hon'ble Judge, of this Court which are conflicting. Accordingly, the matter has been referred to the Division Bench for a decision. In Criminal Revision No. 1012 of 86 Farhad Rahman Beg v. Mstt. Saharana Khatun, Mr. The learned Judge noted that there are three decisions on the point by three Hon'ble Judge, of this Court which are conflicting. Accordingly, the matter has been referred to the Division Bench for a decision. In Criminal Revision No. 1012 of 86 Farhad Rahman Beg v. Mstt. Saharana Khatun, Mr. Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. held that the Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Act) having come into force the provisions of s. 125 of the Cr. PC and the other allied section shall yield place to the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, it was further held in the said decision that the opposite party wife cannot claim a further maintenance allowance relying upon the provision of s. 125 Cr. PC. In Criminal revision no. 1657/86 Sk. Ahmed Hossain v. Mustt. Nurjahan Begum, S.S. Ganguly, J. sitting singly held that the provisions of s. 7 of the said Act is only attracted to the proceedings pending on the date of the said Act having come into force under s. 125 (?) or under s 127 of the Cr. PC. If no such application is pending on the said date further application under s. 127 will not be maintainable. The third decision on the point is reported in 1987 (II) CHN 469 (Dolna Khatoon v. Jamaluddin Ahmed & Anr.). Mr. M.G. Mukherjee, J. held that the maintenance of the minor daughter cannot in any manner be affected with the filing of the application under s. 127 of the Cr. PC read with ss. 3 & 7 of the said Act but with regard to the wife who is said to have been divorced subsequently by the husband the factum of such divorce has to be proved by the cogent evidence in a proceeding under s. 127 of the Cr. PC. The proceeding under s. 128 Cr. PC for execution and enforcement of the maintenance should not in any manner be stopped until the order of maintenance is altered on proof of the supervening circumstances. In resolving the conflicts arising from these three judgments we must first take into consideration the relevant laws laid down by the said Act. The Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 came into force on 19th May 1986. It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu & Kashmir. In resolving the conflicts arising from these three judgments we must first take into consideration the relevant laws laid down by the said Act. The Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 came into force on 19th May 1986. It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Section 3 is the substantive section in this legislation. It lays down with a non-obstente clause that a divorced woman shall be entitled to a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be paid to her within the iddat period by her former husband. children born before or after her divorce and is being maintained by her is also entitled to a fair provision and maintained by her is also entitled to a fair provision and maintenance from her former husband for a period of 2 years from the date of birth of such children an amount equal to the sum Mahar or dower agreed to be paid to her at the time of her marriage or at any time thereafter according to the Muslim Law and all properties given to her before or at the time of marriage or after the marriage by her relatives or friends or the husband or any relative of the husband or his friends. These are the entitlements of a Muslim woman on divorce. Sub-section (2) of s. 3 lays down when the reasonable and fair provisions and maintenance or the amount of dower due has not been delivered to the divorced woman on her divorce she or anyone duly authorised by her make an application to a magistrate for an order for payment of such provisions and maintenance dower or delivery of properties as the case may be. Sub-section (3) authorises the magistrate to make an order directing the former husband to comply with provisions of sub-s. (1) of s. 3. Sub-section (4) deals with the provisions for enforcement of such order. Sub-section (4) authorises the Magistrate to make an order of payment of maintenance to the relatives of the wife, failing which he may direct the State Wakf Board established under s. 9 of the WAKF Act 1954 or under any other law could pay such maintenance as determined by him. Section 5 deals with option to be governed by the provisions of s. 125 or 127 Cr. PC. Section 6 deals with power to make Rules. Section 5 deals with option to be governed by the provisions of s. 125 or 127 Cr. PC. Section 6 deals with power to make Rules. Section 7 deals with transitional provision. It lays down that every application by a divorced woman under s. 125 of under s. 127 of the Cr. PC pending before a Magistrate on the commencement of this Act shall notwithstanding any thing contained in that Code and subject to the provisions of s. 5 of this Act be disposed of by such Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 4. Having noted the provisions of the said Act it is clear that in the field of right to maintenance by a divorced Muslim woman from her husband the provisions of the said Act shall be operative notwithstanding provisions for maintenance in any other Act particularly in s. 125 of the Cr. PC. That being the position no divorced Muslim woman will be entitled to get a maintenance under the provisions of s. 125 of the Cr. PC. There cannot be any dispute with regard to this aspect of law. 5. The question that crops up for determination is if an order under s. 125 has already been made and thereafter this Act has come into operation what would be the effect on the order already passed. Mr. Justice Ganguly placing reliance on s. 7 of the Act, has held that unless the application was pending on the date when this Act come into force no application under s. 127 of the Cr. PC is maintainable. His contention is that only pending applications under s. 125 and 127 of the Cr. PC will survive on this Act having come into force. That being the provisions there cannot be any scope of further application under s. 127 of being filed. The effect of the decision is that an order under s. 125 passed prior to this Act having come into force cannot be altered in any manner. On the other hand, Justice M.G. Mukherjee held an application under s. 127 of the Cr. The effect of the decision is that an order under s. 125 passed prior to this Act having come into force cannot be altered in any manner. On the other hand, Justice M.G. Mukherjee held an application under s. 127 of the Cr. PC will be maintainable even after this Act having come into force only in respect of the divorced Muslim wife but in such a proceedings the factum of divorce has to be established in accordance with law Justice Mukherjee's further view is that the maintenance with regard to the children will not be affected in any manner by this Act having come into force. Chapter IX of the Cr. PC contains provisions for order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. Section 125 provides that any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife and others as contained in other special clauses of the said section the Magistrate may order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of the wife and others. "Wife" for the purposes of the said section includes woman who has been divorced by or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. Because of this definition of the wife a divorced wife is also entitled to maintenance under s. 125 of the Cr. PC. Section 126 Cr. PC deals with the procedure in respect proceedings under s. 125 Cr. PC. Section 127 relates to alteration in allowance. It lays down that on a proof of a change in the circumstance of any person receiving a monthly allowance under s. 125 or ordered under the same section to pay a monthly allowance, to his wife and others as the case may be the Magistrate may make such alteration in the allowance as he thinks fit. In some cases specified in section the Magistrate can also cancel or modify the said order. Section 128 deals with enforcement of the order of maintenance. As the Act under our consideration came into force subsequent to the provisions of the Cr. PC having been enacted, with a non-obstante clause in the said Act, there is no doubt that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance and other rights as specified in s. 3 of the said Act and to no other rights of maintenance provided in any other general legislation. PC having been enacted, with a non-obstante clause in the said Act, there is no doubt that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance and other rights as specified in s. 3 of the said Act and to no other rights of maintenance provided in any other general legislation. This Act being a special Act will hold the field in respect to rights provided for in the said Act. 6. It is urged that an order passed under s. 125 before this Act came into force is not affected by the provisions of this Act and the date on which such order was passed the order was perfectly in accordance with law; unless that order is set aside it will remain in force. There is no express provisions in this Act rendering any order already passed under s. 125 Cr. PC ineffective. Accordingly, it is submitted such order will have all its force, as it is an order under s. 125 unaffected by the provisions of this Act and the person who has been ordered to pay maintenance under s. 125 is entitled to file an application under s. 128 the Cr. PC. Mr. Palit contended ,that since this Act does not provide that even if an order under s. 125 has been passed the said order will be a bar to the operation of s. 3 of this Act the order under s. 125 will remain unaffected and as the provisions of the Cr. PC is not attracted to the case of a divorced Muslim woman after this Act came into force there is no question of filing an application under s. 127 of the Cr. PC. Relying on a decision reported in AIR 1971 SC 57 Mr. Palit argued that it is not open to the legislature to say that a judgment of a court properly constituted and rendered in exercise of its power in a matter brought before it shall be deemed to be unaffected to the interpretation of the law shall be otherwise as declared by the court. Mr. Palit also placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in AIR 1987 Cal. 326 . He further submitted that any order passed under s. 125 Cr. Mr. Palit also placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in AIR 1987 Cal. 326 . He further submitted that any order passed under s. 125 Cr. PC, prior to the same being modified or rescinded by any other order shall remain in force as there is nothing in the provisions of this Act that such an order will be affected. There is no indication in the Act that the provisions of this Act has any retrospective effect. Mr. Roy on the other hand submitted that s. 127 of the Cr. PC applies to an order passed under s. 125 Cr. PC as this Act did not affect any order passed under s. 125 prior to the date of this Act having come into force. There is no doubt s. 117 Cr. PC will not apply if the conditions contained in the said s. 127 namely the charge in circumstance have taken place. According to him change in law is a change in circumstance as contemplated by s. 127 of the Cr. PC. In support he has relied on 1979 (1) SCC 560 (Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh & Anr.) The Supreme Court held that s. 125 of the New Code correspond to s. 488 of the old Code and accordingly the order continued to s. 484 (2) of the New Code, as it is deemed to be an order under s. 125 Cr. PC it will also be subjected to s. 127 of the new Code. The change in the law in respect of maintenance, as much as other factual change of circumstance are circumstances to be considered under s. 127. Mr. Roy submits that this decision will indicate that change in law is a circumstance contemplated by s. 127 of the Cr. PC. Accordingly, an application under s. 127 is maintainable. 7. It appears that the submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing above has failed to take into consideration the effect the non obstante clause in s. 3 of the Act. The non obstante clause is to be understood as operating to set aside as no longer valid anything contained in relevant existing law which is inconsistent with the new enactment. Effect of non-obstante clause is the implied repeal of the inconsistent provision appearing in any existing law. That being the position the provision of s. 125 Cr. The non obstante clause is to be understood as operating to set aside as no longer valid anything contained in relevant existing law which is inconsistent with the new enactment. Effect of non-obstante clause is the implied repeal of the inconsistent provision appearing in any existing law. That being the position the provision of s. 125 Cr. PC will have no force in respect of a divorced woman within the meaning of s. 2(a) of the Act. The liability to pay maintenance under the provisions of s. 125 Cr. PC is a liability imposed by that particular provision of law. When such particular provision of law ceased to have effect any obligation imposed under the aforesaid provision must also cease to have any effect, on the day when the Act came into force. This position makes it abundantly clear that in respect of divorced woman if an order under s. 125 Cr. PC was passed that order will cease to have effect on the date of commencement of the Act. Result would be that no application under s. 127 or any other provision of Chapter IX of the Cr. PC will be maintainable in respect of a divorced woman in whose favour an order under s. 125 Cr. PC was passed taking her to be a divorced wife. 8. But there may be cases where the court while passing order under s. 125 Cr. PC passed an order in favour of a wife not being a divorced wife and after such an order was passed by the court the wife concerned might be divorced by the husband. If the divorce is in accordance with Muslim Law as contemplated by s. 2(a) of the Act the order imposing liability to maintain the wife under s. 125 Cr. PC will also cease. But the factum that such divorce has been granted may be a disputed question of fact. In such circumstance either party to the proceeding under s. 125 may file an application under s. 127 Cr. PC for vacation of the said order. In such case the court will be entitled to maintain an application under s. 127 Cr. PC and pass appropriate orders on proof of the factum of divorce as contemplated by s. 2 (a) of the Act. Section 7 of the Act will not be a bar in respect of such applications under s. 127 Cr. PC. 9. In such case the court will be entitled to maintain an application under s. 127 Cr. PC and pass appropriate orders on proof of the factum of divorce as contemplated by s. 2 (a) of the Act. Section 7 of the Act will not be a bar in respect of such applications under s. 127 Cr. PC. 9. There may be cases in which an order under s. 125 Cr. PC was passed by the court in respect of wife and the children. If in such a case the wife ultimately comes within the scope of s. 3 of the Act the maintenance order in favour of the children will not be affected as the provisions of the Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 has no application in respect of children excepting children covered by s. 3(b) of the Act. Naturally any order of maintenance passed in favour of the children will remain in force even though the order passed in favour of the wife in the same proceeding might have ceased to have the any effect. 10. We accordingly answer the reference made to us. The matter will now go back to the learned Judge who made the reference for disposal of the case in accordance with law. Pabitra Kumar Banerjee, J. I agree. Reference answered; case sent back to the learned Judge for disposal.